Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

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

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".

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

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.

George, the BaTh says all light leaving the pair will be slowed slightly,
causing an overall redshift that may or may not be counterbalanced by the blue
shift arising from its accelerated approach to our galaxy and Earth.

When the star is on the near side, the bending of light by the dwarf more than
compensates for the increase in average light speed.
So The BaTh says that there should be a shapiro type slowing.

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.

yes.

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.

Fair enough...but the distance of their origin from the pulsar could be
important for the BaTh.

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.

Yes.

Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

It could for instance be a beam of radiation that excites surounding gas..
Anyway I suppose it doesn't matter much for our purposes.

"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.

No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

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.

I'm a bit confused as to which pulsar we are discussing now.

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

you see I don't use this convention. My pitch is not quite the same as their
inclination because I rotate my head around the LOS until the line joining the
yellow and grey sections is perpendicular to the LOS.
Such a line can always be found....for any orbit. The ecliptic plane is simply
rotated.
Having done that, their 'longitude of ascending node' becomes my yaw angle.

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

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

All these angles are irrelevant in my method.

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

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

Yes I found that one some time ago. I already matched one of the curves there.

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.

Is this still with reference to the dual pulsar system?
If so there should be two Shapiro effects per cycle.

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.

So what is the actual doppler shift of the EM that makes up the actual pulses
of a neutron star? It should be very heavily redshifted and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

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).

I'll see what I can find.

George


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

On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
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
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".

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

I'm surprised but I don't have that one handy. Are you sure you
aren't thinking of the Hulse and Taylor paper? Pulsar rate slowing
is due to the magnetic field and I don't think GR even comes into
it, nor does ballistic theory AFAICS.

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.

George, the BaTh says all light leaving the pair will be slowed slightly,
causing an overall redshift that may or may not be counterbalanced by the blue
shift arising from its accelerated approach to our galaxy and Earth.

Henry, have a look at the earlier message in this thread where
we discussed this:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...3b2a017ef89b9b

Your conclusion was:

Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.

that's right.



When the star is on the near side, the bending of light by the dwarf more than
compensates for the increase in average light speed.
So The BaTh says that there should be a shapiro type slowing.

Let's see the maths Henry. If you are right then you can
add that curve to you program and then we will see if
you can really match the curves.

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.

Fair enough...but the distance of their origin from the pulsar could be
important for the BaTh.

I doubt it unless it was well outside the binary system but
then there would be little variation in any of the parameters.

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.

Yes.

Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

It could for instance be a beam of radiation that excites surounding gas..

No, the excitation would take far too long to decay
and the pulse would probably have a longer tail.

Anyway I suppose it doesn't matter much for our purposes.

Not really.

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.

No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

OK, so now show me the maths you used to find that there
is an overal delay.


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.

I'm a bit confused as to which pulsar we are discussing now.

The history is lost in the snipping but different bits
of the post refer to different systems. The eclipsing
system is J0737-3039 which is two pulsars.

..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

you see I don't use this convention.

Maybe not but you need to understand it if you want
to know what a longitude of periastron of 155 degrees
means in your terms.

....
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.

Is this still with reference to the dual pulsar system?

Yes.

If so there should be two Shapiro effects per cycle.

There should but the pulses from the second pulsar are
very hard to detect. They have only recently caught them
for a small part of the orbit. Again, being a thin beam
there is a finite chance that it won't sweep over us. Now
that it has been found there might be a more extensive
study in the future.

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.

So what is the actual doppler shift of the EM that makes up the actual pulses
of a neutron star? It should be very heavily redshifted ..

AFAIK it is a continuum with no lines to be measured. Remember
we are talking about radio signals in the VHF to microwave bands.

and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

The slow initial speed would just give an overall distance
value that is higher than actual, but only by a few light
hours at most and we don't know the distance better than
tens of light years, and since the error would be constant,
it doesn't have any effect we can measure.


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
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

OK. If you can add a curve for the ballistic theory Shapiro effect,
then we can really see how well you can match the observations.

George

On 4 Apr 2007 00:30:36 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
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
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".

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

I'm surprised but I don't have that one handy. Are you sure you
aren't thinking of the Hulse and Taylor paper? Pulsar rate slowing
is due to the magnetic field and I don't think GR even comes into
it, nor does ballistic theory AFAICS.

Every second paper I read about pulsars makes some kind of claim that they
support GR.
Why is it still so important to 'prove' GR when people like yourself are
absolutely sure it is correct?


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.

George, the BaTh says all light leaving the pair will be slowed slightly,
causing an overall redshift that may or may not be counterbalanced by the blue
shift arising from its accelerated approach to our galaxy and Earth.

Henry, have a look at the earlier message in this thread where
we discussed this:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...3b2a017ef89b9b

Your conclusion was:

Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.

that's right.



When the star is on the near side, the bending of light by the dwarf more than
compensates for the increase in average light speed.
So The BaTh says that there should be a shapiro type slowing.

Let's see the maths Henry. If you are right then you can
add that curve to you program and then we will see if
you can really match the curves.

George, I don't believe the pulses originate anywhere near the neutron star
itself. I don't believe the effect to which you are refering is necessarily a
shapiro type effect. I am not going to continue to speculate about something I
don't believe happens. Since the calculated velocities upon which all pulsar
theory is based is completely wrong, I fail to se how anyhting positive can
come out of this argument.

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.

Fair enough...but the distance of their origin from the pulsar could be
important for the BaTh.

I doubt it unless it was well outside the binary system but
then there would be little variation in any of the parameters.

George, the pulse we detect is NOT just a magnetic one. Somewhere along the
line EM is generated and sent in many directions. Hte theory says something
about charges being moved along the magnetic field. That doesn't add up because
charges would more likey want to move ACROSS the field.

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.

Yes.

Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

It could for instance be a beam of radiation that excites surounding gas..

No, the excitation would take far too long to decay
and the pulse would probably have a longer tail.

theories, theories.....
You know you can say just about anything because nobody is going up there to
prove you wrong.

Anyway I suppose it doesn't matter much for our purposes.

Not really.

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.

No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

OK, so now show me the maths you used to find that there
is an overal delay.

It should be the same as the GR delay and for basically the same
reasons...except that GR prefers to distort space to keep light speed constant.


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.

I'm a bit confused as to which pulsar we are discussing now.

The history is lost in the snipping but different bits
of the post refer to different systems. The eclipsing
system is J0737-3039 which is two pulsars.

..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

you see I don't use this convention.

Maybe not but you need to understand it if you want
to know what a longitude of periastron of 155 degrees
means in your terms.

yes I'll try to translate it.
It is my Yaw angle...opposite sense and their zero is my 90.
So 155 is my -65 deg Yaw angle, I think.



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.

Is this still with reference to the dual pulsar system?

Yes.

If so there should be two Shapiro effects per cycle.

There should but the pulses from the second pulsar are
very hard to detect. They have only recently caught them
for a small part of the orbit. Again, being a thin beam
there is a finite chance that it won't sweep over us. Now
that it has been found there might be a more extensive
study in the future.

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.

So what is the actual doppler shift of the EM that makes up the actual pulses
of a neutron star? It should be very heavily redshifted ..

AFAIK it is a continuum with no lines to be measured. Remember
we are talking about radio signals in the VHF to microwave bands.

Hmmm..

and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

The slow initial speed would just give an overall distance
value that is higher than actual, but only by a few light
hours at most and we don't know the distance better than
tens of light years, and since the error would be constant,
it doesn't have any effect we can measure.

So you still believe the speed aof all the emitted light miraculously adjusts
to c wrt little planet Earth, do you George?

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
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

OK. If you can add a curve for the ballistic theory Shapiro effect,
then we can really see how well you can match the observations.

I have finally managed to use your method to add the contributuons of two
members of a binary. The programming has nearly driven me up the wall.


George


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

On 4 Apr, 09:51, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:30:36 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
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
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".

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

I'm surprised but I don't have that one handy. Are you sure you
aren't thinking of the Hulse and Taylor paper? Pulsar rate slowing
is due to the magnetic field and I don't think GR even comes into
it, nor does ballistic theory AFAICS.

Every second paper I read about pulsars makes some kind of claim that they
support GR.

That's because they are a very good vehicle for
testing GR in strong field conditions that are hard
to produce other ways.

Why is it still so important to 'prove' GR ...

Because in science any theory is only trusted in
regions that have been tested. The more extreme
the conditions under which it is tested, the more
we can be sure the predictions will be accurate.
Also there is always the hope that some small
deviation will be found which can be the beginning
of the next theory. That's how science works.

... when people like yourself are
absolutely sure it is correct?

Who said I was sure it was correct? I am fairly
sure it will need changes to accomodate QM and
may need a change to explain dark energy (not
dark matter though).

George, the BaTh says all light leaving the pair will be slowed slightly,
causing an overall redshift that may or may not be counterbalanced by the blue
shift arising from its accelerated approach to our galaxy and Earth.

Henry, have a look at the earlier message in this thread where
we discussed this:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...3b2a017ef89b9b

Your conclusion was:

Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.

that's right.

When the star is on the near side, the bending of light by the dwarf more than
compensates for the increase in average light speed.
So The BaTh says that there should be a shapiro type slowing.

Let's see the maths Henry. If you are right then you can
add that curve to you program and then we will see if
you can really match the curves.

George, I don't believe the pulses originate anywhere near the neutron star
itself.

Running away Henry? Show me the maths that led to
your conclusion.

I don't believe the effect to which you are refering is necessarily a
shapiro type effect. I am not going to continue to speculate about something I
don't believe happens.

Fine, if you think you can match the curves without
it but you will then be in the position of explaining
why something that does happen in the Solar system
doesn't happen in the double pulsar system where we
know they are in an eclipsing configuration.

....
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.

Fair enough...but the distance of their origin from the pulsar could be
important for the BaTh.

I doubt it unless it was well outside the binary system but
then there would be little variation in any of the parameters.

George, the pulse we detect is NOT just a magnetic one. Somewhere along the
line EM is generated and sent in many directions. Hte theory says something
about charges being moved along the magnetic field. That doesn't add up because
charges would more likey want to move ACROSS the field.

Correct, in fact the charges move in spirals around a field
line which means it is highly accelerated which means they
radiate. It is called syncrotron radiation as Jerry told you.


Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

It could for instance be a beam of radiation that excites surounding gas..

No, the excitation would take far too long to decay
and the pulse would probably have a longer tail.

theories, theories.....

Common sense Henry, you cannot heat up a stellar mass
and cool it down again in 45 microseconds. Get real
for goodness sake.

You know you can say just about anything because nobody is going up there to
prove you wrong.

There are nuts out there who will argue almost anything.

....
No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

OK, so now show me the maths you used to find that there
is an overal delay.

It should be the same as the GR delay ...

Nope, if you do the maths, it is an advance. As I asked,
if you disagree, show me your calculation.

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

you see I don't use this convention.

Maybe not but you need to understand it if you want
to know what a longitude of periastron of 155 degrees
means in your terms.

yes I'll try to translate it.
It is my Yaw angle...opposite sense and their zero is my 90.
So 155 is my -65 deg Yaw angle, I think.

It should be something like that. Given the conventional
eccentricity is 10^-7, the curve must be so close to a
sine wave it doesn't matter for J1909-3744 but it will
matter when you look at PSR1316 and J0737-3039.

....
and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

The slow initial speed would just give an overall distance
value that is higher than actual, but only by a few light
hours at most and we don't know the distance better than
tens of light years, and since the error would be constant,
it doesn't have any effect we can measure.

So you still believe the speed aof all the emitted light miraculously adjusts
to c wrt little planet Earth, do you George?

c wrt the 'space'through which it is travelling. That
is what your "extinction" (or "speed equalisation" as
I prefer to call it) means, isn't it?

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
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

OK. If you can add a curve for the ballistic theory Shapiro effect,
then we can really see how well you can match the observations.

I have finally managed to use your method to add the contributuons of two
members of a binary. The programming has nearly driven me up the wall.

Neat but I think we generally only need to treat them
separately, at least for pulsars and Cepheids.
Spectroscopic binaries where only a composite light
curve is available would be a different matter of course.

George

On 4 Apr 2007 02:49:56 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 4 Apr, 09:51, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:30:36 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


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

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

I'm surprised but I don't have that one handy. Are you sure you
aren't thinking of the Hulse and Taylor paper? Pulsar rate slowing
is due to the magnetic field and I don't think GR even comes into
it, nor does ballistic theory AFAICS.

Every second paper I read about pulsars makes some kind of claim that they
support GR.

That's because they are a very good vehicle for
testing GR in strong field conditions that are hard
to produce other ways.

No, it's because relativists are becoming desperate.

Why is it still so important to 'prove' GR ...

Because in science any theory is only trusted in
regions that have been tested. The more extreme
the conditions under which it is tested, the more
we can be sure the predictions will be accurate.
Also there is always the hope that some small
deviation will be found which can be the beginning
of the next theory. That's how science works.

Well I might suggest tha BaTh is the one that will replace all of ths nonsense
that has prevailed for over 100 years.

... when people like yourself are
absolutely sure it is correct?

Who said I was sure it was correct? I am fairly
sure it will need changes to accomodate QM and
may need a change to explain dark energy (not
dark matter though).

You also need change to accommodate the absolute aether that you obviously
require to make the theory work.



Let's see the maths Henry. If you are right then you can
add that curve to you program and then we will see if
you can really match the curves.

George, I don't believe the pulses originate anywhere near the neutron star
itself.

Running away Henry? Show me the maths that led to
your conclusion.

The obvious fact is that they would be traveling at maybe c/2 towards Earth if
they did. They would be extremely redshifted. Maybe they are! Maybe they start
out as UV moving at c/2 wrt us.

I don't believe the effect to which you are refering is necessarily a
shapiro type effect. I am not going to continue to speculate about something I
don't believe happens.

Fine, if you think you can match the curves without
it but you will then be in the position of explaining
why something that does happen in the Solar system
doesn't happen in the double pulsar system where we
know they are in an eclipsing configuration.

Until I can find more indo about the dwarf - eg, its brightness curve and
spectral data - I wont comment.



George, the pulse we detect is NOT just a magnetic one. Somewhere along the
line EM is generated and sent in many directions. Hte theory says something
about charges being moved along the magnetic field. That doesn't add up because
charges would more likey want to move ACROSS the field.

Correct, in fact the charges move in spirals around a field
line which means it is highly accelerated which means they
radiate. It is called syncrotron radiation as Jerry told you.

OK maybe..but how far away from the neutron star does this occur. I say it
could continue for LYs.



No, the excitation would take far too long to decay
and the pulse would probably have a longer tail.

theories, theories.....

Common sense Henry, you cannot heat up a stellar mass
and cool it down again in 45 microseconds. Get real
for goodness sake.

It isn't a stellar mass. It's a pocket of gas...being momentarily ionised as
the beam flashes through.

You know you can say just about anything because nobody is going up there to
prove you wrong.

There are nuts out there who will argue almost anything.

That's funny coming from you George.

No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

OK, so now show me the maths you used to find that there
is an overal delay.

It should be the same as the GR delay ...

Nope, if you do the maths, it is an advance. As I asked,
if you disagree, show me your calculation.

The calculation should produce GR's result..or thereabouts.

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

you see I don't use this convention.

Maybe not but you need to understand it if you want
to know what a longitude of periastron of 155 degrees
means in your terms.

yes I'll try to translate it.
It is my Yaw angle...opposite sense and their zero is my 90.
So 155 is my -65 deg Yaw angle, I think.

It should be something like that. Given the conventional
eccentricity is 10^-7, the curve must be so close to a
sine wave it doesn't matter for J1909-3744 but it will
matter when you look at PSR1316 and J0737-3039.

I'll get around to it eventually...still working on the program at present.

and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

The slow initial speed would just give an overall distance
value that is higher than actual, but only by a few light
hours at most and we don't know the distance better than
tens of light years, and since the error would be constant,
it doesn't have any effect we can measure.

So you still believe the speed aof all the emitted light miraculously adjusts
to c wrt little planet Earth, do you George?

c wrt the 'space'through which it is travelling. That
is what your "extinction" (or "speed equalisation" as
I prefer to call it) means, isn't it?

No George. That's your aether idea. Mine is 'speed wrt other light going in
the same direction'. 'Speed' is not a good word though...better to say, "the
relative positions of photons moving in any one direction tend to become
stabilized with distance".

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
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

OK. If you can add a curve for the ballistic theory Shapiro effect,
then we can really see how well you can match the observations.

I have finally managed to use your method to add the contributuons of two
members of a binary. The programming has nearly driven me up the wall.

Neat but I think we generally only need to treat them
separately, at least for pulsars and Cepheids.

Probably....and many variables are orbitted by a WCH.

Spectroscopic binaries where only a composite light
curve is available would be a different matter of course.

Yes. These can be interesting.

Anyway have another look at that reference you gave to the brightness and
velocity curves of cepheids.
It is exactly what I have been saying., They are the same curve...the only
differences being due to contributions from the other member of the pair.

This is really terrific evidence in favour of the BaTh.

George


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

Henri Wilson wrote:

George, I don't believe the pulses originate anywhere
near the neutron star itself.

Running away Henry? Show me the maths that led to
your conclusion.

The obvious fact is that they would be traveling at maybe
c/2 towards Earth if they did. They would be extremely
redshifted. Maybe they are! Maybe they start out as UV
moving at c/2 wrt us.

You seem to think that quantities are important in science.
You suggest that the speed of light leaving a neutron star
might be c/2, a specific quantity.

Another quantity is implicit in your paragraph above.

You know that the signal received from J1909-3744 is in the
radio UHF band, at 1.3 GHz, or a wavelength of 230 mm.
You must know that UV has a wavelength of around 100 nm.
And you must know that if the speed of the wave was divided
by two, the wavelength would be multiplied by two:

100 nm * 2 = 200 nm

But the result you want on the right side of that little
equation is 230 mm. Your guess that the light would need
to be emitted as UV in order to be received as radio was
off by a factor of over a million. The correct value for
the initial wavelength is 115 mm.

How could you possibly be so enormously far off on such an
elementary calculation? Is it because you have no intuitive
sense of scale? That is what it looks like. You know that
a wavelength of UV is shorter than a wavelength of radio,
but to you that means it is maybe half as long. No wonder
you can't understand how things work.

Leonard

On 5 Apr, 00:14, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 02:49:56 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 4 Apr, 09:51, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:30:36 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

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

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

I'm surprised but I don't have that one handy. Are you sure you
aren't thinking of the Hulse and Taylor paper? Pulsar rate slowing
is due to the magnetic field and I don't think GR even comes into
it, nor does ballistic theory AFAICS.

Every second paper I read about pulsars makes some kind of claim that they
support GR.

That's because they are a very good vehicle for
testing GR in strong field conditions that are hard
to produce other ways.

No, it's because relativists are becoming desperate.

ROFl, Henry you are a card. Some are perhaps getting
frustrated because every test performed shows GR is
perfect but we know it is incompatible with QM. They
NEED a discrepancy so they can test string theory and
hopefully point at something better.

Why is it still so important to 'prove' GR ...

Because in science any theory is only trusted in
regions that have been tested. The more extreme
the conditions under which it is tested, the more
we can be sure the predictions will be accurate.
Also there is always the hope that some small
deviation will be found which can be the beginning
of the next theory. That's how science works.

Well I might suggest tha BaTh is the one that will replace all of ths nonsense
that has prevailed for over 100 years.

Not a chance, it can't even explain Sagnac, and
tell me Henry, how does ballistic theory explain
gravity?

... when people like yourself are
absolutely sure it is correct?

Who said I was sure it was correct? I am fairly
sure it will need changes to accomodate QM and
may need a change to explain dark energy (not
dark matter though).

You also need change to accommodate the absolute aether that you obviously
require to make the theory work.

Keep repeating that lie often enough and you might
convince yourself it is true even though your
animation proved it false. Oh, I forgot, you left
out the second part so you didn't have to admit
you did that.

restoring context
George, the BaTh says all light leaving the pair will be slowed slightly,
causing an overall redshift that may or may not be counterbalanced by the blue
shift arising from its accelerated approach to our galaxy and Earth.
.
Henry, have a look at the earlier message in this thread where
we discussed this:
.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...3b2a017ef89b9b
.
Your conclusion was:
.
Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.
.
that's right.
.
When the star is on the near side, the bending of light by the dwarf more than
compensates for the increase in average light speed.
So The BaTh says that there should be a shapiro type slowing.

Let's see the maths Henry. If you are right then you can
add that curve to you program and then we will see if
you can really match the curves.

George, I don't believe the pulses originate anywhere near the neutron star
itself.

Running away Henry? Show me the maths that led to
your conclusion.

The obvious fact is that they would be traveling at maybe c/2 towards Earth if
they did. They would be extremely redshifted. Maybe they are! Maybe they start
out as UV moving at c/2 wrt us.

Try to change the subject again Henry? I am still waiting
for you to show your maths that says ballistic theory
predicts a delay for the Shapiro effect.

I don't believe the effect to which you are refering is necessarily a
shapiro type effect. I am not going to continue to speculate about something I
don't believe happens.

Fine, if you think you can match the curves without
it but you will then be in the position of explaining
why something that does happen in the Solar system
doesn't happen in the double pulsar system where we
know they are in an eclipsing configuration.

Until I can find more indo about the dwarf - eg, its brightness curve and
spectral data - I wont comment.

Why do you need to know about the dwarf to explain an
effect within the solar system? That is the weakest
excuse you have come up with yet.

George, the pulse we detect is NOT just a magnetic one. Somewhere along the
line EM is generated and sent in many directions. Hte theory says something
about charges being moved along the magnetic field. That doesn't add up because
charges would more likey want to move ACROSS the field.

Correct, in fact the charges move in spirals around a field
line which means it is highly accelerated which means they
radiate. It is called syncrotron radiation as Jerry told you.

OK maybe..

It is a mojor energy loss in accelerators, hence the name.

but how far away from the neutron star does this occur. I say it
could continue for LYs.

The star rotates at 435 Hz. At what radius would
the field be moving tangentially at the speed of
light? It can't be more than 115 km by mental
arithmetic. Think before typing Henry.

No, the excitation would take far too long to decay
and the pulse would probably have a longer tail.

theories, theories.....

Common sense Henry, you cannot heat up a stellar mass
and cool it down again in 45 microseconds. Get real
for goodness sake.

It isn't a stellar mass. It's a pocket of gas...being momentarily ionised as
the beam flashes through.

Rubbish, 45 microseconds is 13km so that is the maximum
radius of your pocket even if the whole thing was heated
and cooled instantly. A bigger region would produce a
longer pulse as the light from the limb would take longer
than the light from the facing surface.

Now work out the surface brightness given that we see the
signal in RF but not visible so it must be cool, then work
out the luminosity. There's no way you can get anywhere
near the energy levels observed.

You know you can say just about anything because nobody is going up there to
prove you wrong.

There are nuts out there who will argue almost anything.

That's funny coming from you George.

Look at Sean's idea on how light travels in a cycloid!

No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

OK, so now show me the maths you used to find that there
is an overal delay.

It should be the same as the GR delay ...

Nope, if you do the maths, it is an advance. As I asked,
if you disagree, show me your calculation.

The calculation should produce GR's result..or thereabouts.

There is no reason why it should and we went over
the ballistic model in the previous post, reference
above, and you folllowed why it is an advance. It
is the opposite of what GR predicts.

and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

The slow initial speed would just give an overall distance
value that is higher than actual, but only by a few light
hours at most and we don't know the distance better than
tens of light years, and since the error would be constant,
it doesn't have any effect we can measure.

So you still believe the speed aof all the emitted light miraculously adjusts
to c wrt little planet Earth, do you George?

c wrt the 'space'through which it is travelling. That
is what your "extinction" (or "speed equalisation" as
I prefer to call it) means, isn't it?

No George. That's your aether idea.

It was your phrase "quality of space" that gave me that
impression.

Mine is 'speed wrt other light going in
the same direction'.

Now that is nuts. How does one pulse know what any
other pulse is doing Henry, are there superluminal
particles flying between them to transfer momentum
and equalise their speeds? How does each pulse know
which other pulses to match to, they can't equalise
with light from other stars going the other way or
they will all stop !!!

'Speed' is not a good word though...better to say, "the
relative positions of photons moving in any one direction tend to become
stabilized with distance".

Hilarious Henry, it's great watching you backpedal
when you have shot yourself in the foot :-)

OK. If you can add a curve for the ballistic theory Shapiro effect,
then we can really see how well you can match the observations.

I have finally managed to use your method to add the contributuons of two
members of a binary. The programming has nearly driven me up the wall.

Neat but I think we generally only need to treat them
separately, at least for pulsars and Cepheids.

Probably....and many variables are orbitted by a WCH.

What?

Spectroscopic binaries where only a composite light
curve is available would be a different matter of course.

Yes. These can be interesting.

Easy but uninformative.

Anyway have another look at that reference you gave to the brightness and
velocity curves of cepheids.
It is exactly what I have been saying., They are the same curve...the only
differences being due to contributions from the other member of the pair.

This is really terrific evidence in favour of the BaTh.

No it isn't. I'm still waiting for you to calculate
how much is due to c+v and how much is intrinsic
for one of these examples. You will understand why
it isn't evidence in your favour when you do that.

George