Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 26 Mar, 00:56, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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:
...
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...

Pulsars are normally slowing very slightly but it
is _very_ gradual:

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

"For example, a pulsar called PSR J1603-7202 is known to have
a period of 0.0148419520154668 seconds. However the periods
of all radio pulsars are increasing extremely slowly. The
period of PSR J1603-7202 increases by just 0.0000005 seconds
every million years!"

..which is exactly what the BaTh predicts for a pulsar that is in a very
large
orbit. ..but it is also to be expected that they should be slowing as they
lose
energy. I see no problem there.

"I expect" is not a mathematical prediction. Show the
maths that gives you a figure of 500 ns per million
years and I'll believe you.

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.

We have since corrected that, your new numbers are
realistic.

The 'correction' is negligible.

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

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

Are they delayed or advanced?

Ballistic theory says they should be advanced but they
are actually delayed.

No. The BaTh should be in agreement with GR.

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

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?

See the illustration here

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

In one of the papers I cited some time ago, there was a
diagram shoing a cross-section where precession means we
have stripes across the beam, like the scan lines of a TV.

It's a pretty crappy article.

It is not intended as technical.

Quote:
"The time between pulses, the period, is the time that it takes for the
neutron
star to rotate once. "

Why aren't two pulses emitted per rotation?

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

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

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

and:

"Therefore the most likely explanation is that a pulsar is a neutron star
that
spins rapidly and emits radio waves along its magnetic axis. However, not
all
neutron stars are necessarily detectable as pulsars. The beams from some
neutron stars may never pass the Earth and will therefore not be detected.
Also, other neutron stars may have been pulsars in the past, but the
process
that causes the beam of radiation (which is not fully understood) may have
turned off or is just too weak to be detected. "

In other words, they don't know.

In other words :

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

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

Both pretty obvious really.

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.

Yes, so the signals from the pulsar when it is on the far side
of the companion should be accelerated towards us and then
slowed to the original speed once it has passed the dwarf and
is en route to us. That would produce an advance of the arrival
time as we discussed some time ago. You appeared to agree the
mechanism then so can you go back and have another read, I don't
want to write all the same stuff again.

GR says the same.

No, it predicts a delay.

GR effectively says the light s[p]eed remains
constant and SPACE contracts to make that so.
As the Pound- Rebka experiment showed, both approaches give the same
answer.

Pound-Rebka showed that processes seem to go slower when
viewed from a higher potential. In GR the light seems to
move slower when it is close to the companion hence it
predicts a delay.

But the companion is orbiting the star....not vice versa...

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

The pulsar is barely moving.

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

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

No Henry, it could not "be anything", it is a white dwarf
because it has the spectrum that falls into that
classification.

Well if it can be positively identified let''s see its brightness curve.
Do you think we can ask someone to try to measure it for us?
Are you in touch with any astronomers?

No. I suspect they will try to get some telescope time
at some point but it will take its place in the priorities.

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...

Strange how you now agree with me.

I agree ..but it is a negligible effect .....and not related to
extinction.

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

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

The truth is that the luminosity drops to near zero
for 2 degrees of the orbit, that is the data and it
is not an interpretation.

eclipses CAN occur.

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

...but there can also be eclipse-like dips in brightness curves caused
purely
by c+v.


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?

Why do you say light cannot escape Henry, of course it
escapes or we couldn't receive the pulses.

I was under the impression that no light can escape from the neutron star
itself.

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

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.

Go on then, show how your program produces a drop to zero
luninosity, or say by just five or six magnitudes, for just
two degrees of the orbit with no variation at any other time.
That is what the program is for isn't it?

Sure.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/narrow.jpg

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

George

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:22:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

That idea went out the window long ago.

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, SR says that light emitted from differently moving source at the same
point will travel through space at the same speed .
Are you now denying the very existence of Einstein's second postulate?


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.

Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. I am trying to include both
options in the one program but it's a hell of a job.


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.

I have already done that.
I gave you the figures.
....but they are just a geometric phenomenon.


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.

I'm reasonably happy with the idea of energy loss due to a number of
factors....although I'm sure matter falling into the pulsar would also slow it
down.



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.

I have to compare its curve with a sine wave and look at residuals. .



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

there are many theories George. Nobody really has much of a clue.


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.

Oh crap!
As the pope said to allah, "if the faith is strong enough, you can find
evidence for it everywhere you look".

Don't you think there might be some degree of magnetic damping?

I suggest many possibilities but you never listen.

I listen but so far they have all been laughable.

They're no funnier than your claim that Einstein's second postulate doesn't
really operate even though you have staked your whole reputation on the theory
that follows it.

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.

Photon axis, centrifugal force, sideways displacement....etc, etc....

..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.

I'm not discussing it futrther here. If you want to stick with the aether
explanation then go ahead. There could easily be a local EM FoR that behaves
like an aether.


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 your model will confirm when you do the analysis
thoroughly.

The analysis IS thorough and it demonstrates my point perfectly.
All doppler calculated velocities are likely to be very wrong.

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.

I've already done it for J1909-3744.
For a distance of 3Lys, the (orbital velocity x cos(pitch)) = about 30 m/s.
(for a bunching factor, 1 in 10^4)

This implies that the pulsar is in a quite small orbit that is somewhat face
on.

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

That's 180 out.

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:

Where does it say doppler is zero at that point?

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

Theories, theories, George...all based on the wrong velocity figures.

I wouldn't believe anything in a paper like this. It's nothing but pure
speculation set around statistically manipulated figures.

..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.

I don't know what the starting phase is in the above figure. I don't understand
their phasing at all.

Something is 90 out wrt something else yet longitude of periastron (deg) =
155.7452858095 ± 7. What are these two 'somethings'?

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

OK, I understand what you are saying but I can't relate it to this figure.

George



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

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:25:42 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

If the faith is strong enough George, you will find evidence of it everywhere.

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.

Stop preaching George and try to understand why Einstein's second postulate
requires an aether.


George



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

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:27:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

My main point is to show why redefining yaw angle makes it legitimate to use
edge-on orbits.

Did you try holding up a paper cutout and rotating it around the LOS till you
find the axis I talked about?


George



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

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:29:54 +0100, "OG" wrote:


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




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?

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

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

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:34:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

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.

I'm sure there are many that have very slow orbit periods.

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.

They orbit all kinds of objects, not just the galaxy...and other objects orbit
them.
Many orbits will involve more than one other object and will be unstable.


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 grreen 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

It isn't difficult to produce variations of 1.5 mag. ..but 3 is about the limit
with the BaTh before the critical distance is reached and the curves become
peaked.
There still appears to be no theory that explains any intrinsic brightness
variation of huff-puff stars.

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



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

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


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




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?

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

You need it spelling out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:51:01 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Pulsars are normally slowing very slightly but it
is _very_ gradual:

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

"For example, a pulsar called PSR J1603-7202 is known to have
a period of 0.0148419520154668 seconds. However the periods
of all radio pulsars are increasing extremely slowly. The
period of PSR J1603-7202 increases by just 0.0000005 seconds
every million years!"

..which is exactly what the BaTh predicts for a pulsar that is in a very
large
orbit. ..but it is also to be expected that they should be slowing as they
lose
energy. I see no problem there.

"I expect" is not a mathematical prediction. Show the
maths that gives you a figure of 500 ns per million
years and I'll believe you.

George if you can tell me how much matter is falling into the star and what is
its relative angular momentum, I might be able to provide some kind of answer.
You would also have to assume something about magnetic damping and tidal
effects due to gaseous atmosphere around it. ..and what is the curvature of its
transverse motion?

How anyone can seriously claim that it is exactly in line with GR predictions
is really funny.

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.

We have since corrected that, your new numbers are
realistic.

The 'correction' is negligible.

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

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

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?

Ballistic theory says they should be advanced but they
are actually delayed.

No. The BaTh should be in agreement with GR.

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

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

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?

See the illustration here

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

In one of the papers I cited some time ago, there was a
diagram shoing a cross-section where precession means we
have stripes across the beam, like the scan lines of a TV.

It's a pretty crappy article.

It is not intended as technical.

Quote:
"The time between pulses, the period, is the time that it takes for the
neutron
star to rotate once. "

Why aren't two pulses emitted per rotation?

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

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

Yes.
I would expect two pulses per rotation from many pulsars..
I don't even accept that this is the real source of pulses.

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

Maybe..but I would have thought the field is more like a broad plane than a
beam.
Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

"Therefore the most likely explanation is that a pulsar is a neutron star
that
spins rapidly and emits radio waves along its magnetic axis. However, not
all
neutron stars are necessarily detectable as pulsars. The beams from some
neutron stars may never pass the Earth and will therefore not be detected.
Also, other neutron stars may have been pulsars in the past, but the
process
that causes the beam of radiation (which is not fully understood) may have
turned off or is just too weak to be detected. "

In other words, they don't know.

In other words :

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

Possibly,..maybe not.

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

It will.


Both pretty obvious really.

Reasonably.


Yes, so the signals from the pulsar when it is on the far side
of the companion should be accelerated towards us and then
slowed to the original speed once it has passed the dwarf and
is en route to us. That would produce an advance of the arrival
time as we discussed some time ago. You appeared to agree the
mechanism then so can you go back and have another read, I don't
want to write all the same stuff again.

GR says the same.

No, it predicts a delay.

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



Pound-Rebka showed that processes seem to go slower when
viewed from a higher potential. In GR the light seems to
move slower when it is close to the companion hence it
predicts a delay.

But the companion is orbiting the star....not vice versa...

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

but it doesn't get blocked in the pulsar.

The pulsar is barely moving.

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

I gave you some figures.


Well if it can be positively identified let''s see its brightness curve.
Do you think we can ask someone to try to measure it for us?
Are you in touch with any astronomers?

No. I suspect they will try to get some telescope time
at some point but it will take its place in the priorities.

yes. I suppose so.


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

Strange how you now agree with me.

I agree ..but it is a negligible effect .....and not related to
extinction.

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

...explain the phasing in diagram1 and I will try.
I don't like their method anyway.

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

The truth is that the luminosity drops to near zero
for 2 degrees of the orbit, that is the data and it
is not an interpretation.

eclipses CAN occur.

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

Where is evidence of the eclipse?


Why do you say light cannot escape Henry, of course it
escapes or we couldn't receive the pulses.

I was under the impression that no light can escape from the neutron star
itself.

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

theories, theories, again George.
I'm not saying they are wrong...just suspicious...

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.

Go on then, show how your program produces a drop to zero
luninosity, or say by just five or six magnitudes, for just
two degrees of the orbit with no variation at any other time.
That is what the program is for isn't it?

Sure.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/narrow.jpg

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

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

George



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

On 3 Apr, 01:25, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:51:01 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Pulsars are normally slowing very slightly but it
is _very_ gradual:

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

"For example, a pulsar called PSR J1603-7202 is known to have
a period of 0.0148419520154668 seconds. However the periods
of all radio pulsars are increasing extremely slowly. The
period of PSR J1603-7202 increases by just 0.0000005 seconds
every million years!"

..which is exactly what the BaTh predicts for a pulsar that is in a very
large
orbit. ..but it is also to be expected that they should be slowing as they
lose
energy. I see no problem there.

"I expect" is not a mathematical prediction. Show the
maths that gives you a figure of 500 ns per million
years and I'll believe you.

George if you can tell me how much matter is falling into the star and what is
its relative angular momentum, I might be able to provide some kind of answer.
You would also have to assume something about magnetic damping and tidal
effects due to gaseous atmosphere around it. ..and what is the curvature of its
transverse motion?

How anyone can seriously claim that it is exactly in line with GR predictions
is really funny.

Nobody claimed it was in line with any GR predictions,
you said it was "exactly what the BaTh predicts".

If you read what I said in tyhe other message you will now know that the
VDoppler effect doesn't exist...as I originally thought.

We have since corrected that, your new numbers are
realistic.

The 'correction' is negligible.

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

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

None at all, just comparison against an empirical curve.

Are they delayed or advanced?

Ballistic theory says they should be advanced but they
are actually delayed.

No. The BaTh should be in agreement with GR.

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

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

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

Why aren't two pulses emitted per rotation?

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

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

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

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

I don't even accept that this is the real source of pulses.

I don't really care what you accept, all that matters
is that pulses are produced and we can use them as a
testbed.

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

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

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

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

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

Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

"Therefore the most likely explanation is that a pulsar is a neutron star
that
spins rapidly and emits radio waves along its magnetic axis. However, not
all
neutron stars are necessarily detectable as pulsars. The beams from some
neutron stars may never pass the Earth and will therefore not be detected.
Also, other neutron stars may have been pulsars in the past, but the
process
that causes the beam of radiation (which is not fully understood) may have
turned off or is just too weak to be detected. "

In other words, they don't know.

In other words :

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

Possibly,..maybe not.

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

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

It will.

Both pretty obvious really.

Reasonably.

Yes, so the signals from the pulsar when it is on the far side
of the companion should be accelerated towards us and then
slowed to the original speed once it has passed the dwarf and
is en route to us. That would produce an advance of the arrival
time as we discussed some time ago. You appeared to agree the
mechanism then so can you go back and have another read, I don't
want to write all the same stuff again.

GR says the same.

No, it predicts a delay.

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

We see a delay that peaks like this:

_/\_____

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

Not even close.

Pound-Rebka showed that processes seem to go slower when
viewed from a higher potential. In GR the light seems to
move slower when it is close to the companion hence it
predicts a delay.

But the companion is orbiting the star....not vice versa...

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

but it doesn't get blocked in the pulsar.

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

The pulsar is barely moving.

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

I gave you some figures.

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

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

Well if it can be positively identified let''s see its brightness curve.
Do you think we can ask someone to try to measure it for us?
Are you in touch with any astronomers?

No. I suspect they will try to get some telescope time
at some point but it will take its place in the priorities.

yes. I suppose so.

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

Strange how you now agree with me.

I agree ..but it is a negligible effect .....and not related to
extinction.

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

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

As I understand it, the phase is like this:


A


B + D Earth


C


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

I don't like their method anyway.

The terms are fairly standard and you should be able
to convert to other angles easily. These should help:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth is that the luminosity drops to near zero
for 2 degrees of the orbit, that is the data and it
is not an interpretation.

eclipses CAN occur.

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

Where is evidence of the eclipse?

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

Why do you say light cannot escape Henry, of course it
escapes or we couldn't receive the pulses.

I was under the impression that no light can escape from the neutron star
itself.

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

theories, theories, again George.

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

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

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


Go on then, show how your program produces a drop to zero
luninosity, or say by just five or six magnitudes, for just
two degrees of the orbit with no variation at any other time.
That is what the program is for isn't it?

Sure.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/narrow.jpg

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

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

I am discussing J0737-3039 which is a double pulsar system
with an eclipse. The velocity curve should be easy to find
or perhaps figure out from the orbital elements (as before
work back using conventional theory to find the observations
thenre-interpret using ballistic theory).

George

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:


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


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

So what's your explanation then?

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

You need it spelling out?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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