Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 24 Feb 2007 05:52:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .


...
The normal Doppler is there of course, I haven't disputed
that, but it isn't the whole story. The pulse spacing is
also affected by what I describe above and you need to take
that into account AS WELL to get the full answer.

The program takes everything into account.
Why don't you experiment with it?

I have, it gives the wrong value because you only take
the bunching due to c+v vs c-v into account on the
brightness curve, not the velocity curve. The predicted
velocity is derived from the time between pulses so you
need to take into account there too.

Ah, I think I know what you are saying now.

Yes you do vbg!! Put it in your diary, it has taken weeks
for you to see this but the penny has at last dropped :-)

The penny has dropped as to why you are making your mistake.

You are claiming that the closer the bunching, the shorter the
wavelength...and
the higher the observed doppler shift.

Yes Henry. The frequency is the pulse repetition rate
which is what is used to determine the speed, so the
"wavelength" is the distance between consecutive pulses.

see below.

Yes that should be true for the pulsar...but it is not true in my
program.....

Right, that's the program error I have been describing
to you all these weeks :-) At least now you know what
the problem is.

It is not an error.
YOU are making an error of interpretation. see below

So what is the difference?
The difference is that it is the change in the actual width of the pulsar
pulses in each bunch that is analogous to what my program does.
Do you see what I mean?
In reality, the width of the pulsar pulses varies by the same doppler
fraction
as does the distance between pulses. (~90 parts per million)

Correct, the pulse width is about 1.5% of the period and
that factor remains constant as the pulses travel.

So you have to average the WIDTHS of pulses and NOT their spacing to
generate
your equivalent of my red curve.

As you say, the width varies by the same fraction as the
gap so it doesn't matter whether you take the ratio of
the observed width to mean width or of the observed gap
to the mean gap, they should give the same apparent speed.

No No No.
For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change after emission. The
spacing between them DOES.....because they are moving at different speed wrt
the Bcentre.
So the spacing...or bunching... is not a direct indicator of doppler shift or
relative source velocity..
The PULSE WIDTH is.

So my red curve is a measure of the average pulse width arriving in a fixed
(observer) time interval.
For light, it indicates the average 'wavelength' of the light arriving in the
time interval.

If that was your intention it should have worked but the
curve on the screen doesn't tie up with that and I suspect
if you showed the numerical value of the peak it would be
too low. That's why I have been saying there is a bug in
your software.

Now you know why there is not.

The bunching itself is an indicator of brightness variation.

Yes, but it also affects the _apparent_ Doppler shift so
affects the apparent speed as well, that's the speed
calculated by astronomers which is based only on the PRF
and which you show as the red curve.

No. Bunching due to different relative speeds does not affect the original
wavelengths of the light. (or widths of the pulses)

What a lot of people don't realise is that no doppler shift occurs at the
source, in BaTh.
For instance, all the photons making up H.alpha light from all moving sources
has the same 'absolute distance' between 'wavecrests'.

That absolute distance will change during any change in speed as the photon
crosses space....so the observed wavelength anywhere will still reveal relative
source/observer speed. In other words, gratings still measure true doppler
shift in BaTh.

I'm becoming a bit confused as to what we are actually talking about
now.

At any point arond the orbit, pulses are being
sent with a time gap of 2.95 ms. That gap is
reduced at the receiver for two reasons:

a) the velocity of the pulsar towards the receiver
means that consecutive pulses travel different
distances. That is the normal Doppler effect.

b) if the pulses are transmitted at different speeds
then faster pulses can 'catch up' to slower ones
reducing the gap (or 'fall behind' if the second
pulse is slower increasing the gap) and hence the
time between reception depends on how much of this
effect happens before extinction equalises the
speeds. This effect is not taken into account
in published velocity curves so the published
values will be higher or lower than the simple
Doppler value.

That effect is not indicative of source velocity.

Correct, but it does affect the velocity which an astronomer
would calculate from the pulse timing. Remember you already
have " The blue curve is the true velocity of the source
wrt the observer." so we are here talking about " The red
one is the velocity curve that a distant observer would
calculate as true using doppler shift ...".

Those quotes are from your other post. It is the latter curve
calculated from the pulse rate that I have been telling you
is wrong. Now you understand why.

No George. I now understand why YOU and all the astronomers are wrong.
The true measure of pulsar orbit speed can be obtained by observing the PULSE
WIDTH variations.......which are quite small....and NOT the variation in the
pulse arrival rate.
In fact we have here a good way to check the BaTh....if we can get reliable
data..
I say the pattern of variation of pulse width over each orbit cycle WILL NOT be
quite the same as that of the 'bunching'.
However I think the difference would be too small to measure because the pulses
are generally assumed to have constant width.

Part (a) is dependent on the radial component of velocity
at the time of transmission, part (b) depends on the
acceleration at the same time and of course both vary
round the orbit. Your program includes effect (a) but
not effect (b).

You'll have to rethink this in light of what I have said.

I don't need to rethink, you have now understood and stated
the problem. What you need to do now is make the program
produce the correct red curve and preferably show the peak
velocity value as text like your min/max brightness.

I thank you for pointing out the 'problem' George.

I eagerly await your reply....

George

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

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 11:01:44 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Feb 2007 13:14:05 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg"
wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

No you've got it all wrong George.
The BLUE curve is the actual one.

Several conflicting descriptions of the red and blue curves
have been given. Could you state definitively what each
curve represents?

Yes. George is totally confused...(isn't every relativist?)

The blue curve is the true velocity of the source wrt the observer.

Exactly the way I used it every time except once. What's
your problem Henry, you can't cope with the physics so
you have to go to town on a typo?

I wasn't really having a go at you George. I was just trying to explain each
curve to Leonard.

The red one is the velocity curve that a distant observer would calculate
as
true using doppler shift measured with a grating.

That it what it is supposed to be but Henry has an error
in his calculation at the moment.

I do not...

How wrong can one be?

Your program is out by a factor of about 11000 for the
test case we tried.

It is not....

George


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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 24 Feb 2007 05:52:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
....
Yes that should be true for the pulsar...but it is not true in my
program.....

Right, that's the program error I have been describing
to you all these weeks :-) At least now you know what
the problem is.

It is not an error.
YOU are making an error of interpretation. see below

So what is the difference?
The difference is that it is the change in the actual width of the
pulsar
pulses in each bunch that is analogous to what my program does.
Do you see what I mean?
In reality, the width of the pulsar pulses varies by the same doppler
fraction
as does the distance between pulses. (~90 parts per million)

Correct, the pulse width is about 1.5% of the period and
that factor remains constant as the pulses travel.

So you have to average the WIDTHS of pulses and NOT their spacing to
generate
your equivalent of my red curve.

As you say, the width varies by the same fraction as the
gap so it doesn't matter whether you take the ratio of
the observed width to mean width or of the observed gap
to the mean gap, they should give the same apparent speed.

No No No.
For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change after emission.
The
spacing between them DOES.....because they are moving at different speed
wrt
the Bcentre.

Yes yes yes There are two problems with what you say:

First, the pulses from J1909-3744 are 45us long. Think of
opening the door on the front of an incinerator for a few
seconds then closing it, all this on a planet in orbit round
a star such that the planet is being accelerated towards a
distant observer. That observer sees the thermal radiation
from the fire appear, last a short time then vanish.
According to ballistic theory, the radiation emitted just
before the door closes travels faster than that emitted just
after it opened. The tail of the pulse therefore catches up
with the front so the length of the pulse shortens by exactly
the same ratio as the gap between the pulses.

Second, and more important, nobody uses the width of the
pulse to calculate the Doppler, they use the pulse frequency.
Whether the width changes or not is therefore of no relevance,
unless you use the gap times you won't get a curve that can be
compared to published curves or data derived from them such as
J1909-3744's published orbital parameters.

So the spacing...or bunching... is not a direct indicator of doppler shift
or
relative source velocity..
The PULSE WIDTH is.

Apologies to others for apparent shouting but I'll use caps
for emphasis as Henry has.

No Henry, with ballistic theory NOTHING about the signal is
indicative of the original velocity, but that doesn't matter
anyway because NOBODY PUBLISHES VELOCITY CURVES BASED ON THE
PULSE WIDTH.

big snip - Henry the aspect of optical wavelengths is
more complex and will totally confuse the issue if we get
sidetracked so I'll leave it for another time. Let's
finish the discussion of pulsars and get your program
corrected.

I don't need to rethink, you have now understood and stated
the problem. What you need to do now is make the program
produce the correct red curve and preferably show the peak
velocity value as text like your min/max brightness.

I thank you for pointing out the 'problem' George.

I eagerly await your reply....

It's nice to be appreciated ;-)

I eagerly await the output from your corrected program.

George

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:45:21 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 24 Feb 2007 05:52:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
...
Yes that should be true for the pulsar...but it is not true in my
program.....

Right, that's the program error I have been describing
to you all these weeks :-) At least now you know what
the problem is.

It is not an error.
YOU are making an error of interpretation. see below

So what is the difference?
The difference is that it is the change in the actual width of the
pulsar
pulses in each bunch that is analogous to what my program does.
Do you see what I mean?
In reality, the width of the pulsar pulses varies by the same doppler
fraction
as does the distance between pulses. (~90 parts per million)

Correct, the pulse width is about 1.5% of the period and
that factor remains constant as the pulses travel.

So you have to average the WIDTHS of pulses and NOT their spacing to
generate
your equivalent of my red curve.

As you say, the width varies by the same fraction as the
gap so it doesn't matter whether you take the ratio of
the observed width to mean width or of the observed gap
to the mean gap, they should give the same apparent speed.

No No No.
For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change after emission.
The
spacing between them DOES.....because they are moving at different speed
wrt
the Bcentre.

Yes yes yes There are two problems with what you say:

First, the pulses from J1909-3744 are 45us long. Think of
opening the door on the front of an incinerator for a few
seconds then closing it, all this on a planet in orbit round
a star such that the planet is being accelerated towards a
distant observer. That observer sees the thermal radiation
from the fire appear, last a short time then vanish.
According to ballistic theory, the radiation emitted just
before the door closes travels faster than that emitted just
after it opened. The tail of the pulse therefore catches up
with the front so the length of the pulse shortens by exactly
the same ratio as the gap between the pulses.

Point taken but there are several problem with what YOU say.

Firstly that is only true if speed is constant wrt the source. In this orbiting
situation, an acceleration is present....and a VARYING one......meaning that
the two ratios are NOT the same.
Secondly it is not terribly clear what actually causes Pulsar pulses. There is
some kind of interaction between the rotating magentic field and charged
material EXTERNAL to the neutron star itself. There is no certainty that this
material is rotating at the same rate as the star...more likely it is
'fixed'..... otherwise we wouldn't see sharp pulses at all.
It might not even be rotating with the orbit of the pair.

Second, and more important, nobody uses the width of the
pulse to calculate the Doppler, they use the pulse frequency.

I'm suggesting they should....and according to you it should be the same...

I think I would also suggest there would be a ~90 degree phase shift between
velocity curves produced by the two methods.

Whether the width changes or not is therefore of no relevance,
unless you use the gap times you won't get a curve that can be
compared to published curves or data derived from them such as
J1909-3744's published orbital parameters.

It might be very relevant. Without precise knowledge of the manner in which the
pulses are generated, I would not claim for certain that what you say is wrong
in the case of pulsars...... but this is not a problem for my program because
the ENERGY in each hypothetical pulse remains the same whether or not its width
varies as it travels....and the program sums the energy arriving per unit time
to produce brightness curves.
Also I don't believe your above theory applies to individual photons. Rather
they are emitted as 'rigid' entities that possess a kind of absolute length and
cross section. The two ends normally travel at the same speed according to
BaTh, except during an acceleration... in which one end moves relative to the
other and the photon's 'length' permanently changes.

So the spacing...or bunching... is not a direct indicator of doppler shift
or
relative source velocity..
The PULSE WIDTH is.

Apologies to others for apparent shouting but I'll use caps
for emphasis as Henry has.

No Henry, with ballistic theory NOTHING about the signal is
indicative of the original velocity, but that doesn't matter
anyway because NOBODY PUBLISHES VELOCITY CURVES BASED ON THE
PULSE WIDTH.

Because it is obviously rather more difficult...and besides, they don't want to
reveal the fact that the answers seem quite different when they DO try.

big snip - Henry the aspect of optical wavelengths is
more complex and will totally confuse the issue if we get
sidetracked so I'll leave it for another time. Let's
finish the discussion of pulsars and get your program
corrected.

The program does not need correcting. It doesn't operate on pulse
width...rather, pulse energy....and that's near enough to being constant.

I don't need to rethink, you have now understood and stated
the problem. What you need to do now is make the program
produce the correct red curve and preferably show the peak
velocity value as text like your min/max brightness.

I thank you for pointing out the 'problem' George.

I eagerly await your reply....

It's nice to be appreciated ;-)

I eagerly await the output from your corrected program.

It is correct the way it is. However it is not set up for analysing pulsars
because there are no 'brightness curves' available.


George


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

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
news
For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change after emission.
The spacing between them DOES.....because they are moving at different
speed wrt the Bcentre.


Henri, what you are saying would be true if the pulses were zero width in
time.


But as they, in essence, long trains of photons, emitted over a significant
lenth of time, the entire 'pulse' would be compressed just as George is
telling you.

The pulses get narrower and closer together. The 'duty cycle' (ratio of
time on to time off) would remain constant.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

Henri Wilson wrote:

For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change
after emission. The spacing between them DOES.....because
they are moving at different speed wrt the Bcentre.
So the spacing...or bunching... is not a direct indicator
of doppler shift or relative source velocity.. The PULSE
WIDTH is.

Your ballistic theory assumes that the length of a photon
does not change during flight. That is, even though the
source is accelerating, the front and back ends of a photon
travel at the same speed, like a solid particle. It will
be Doppler shifted during emission, but no further Doppler
shift occurs during flight.

However, you are attempting to treat pulses from a pulsar
as if they were solid bodies. Instead, each pulse consists
of vast numbers of photons. Just as many pulses can bunch
together during flight, the length of each individual pulse
will change due to bunching of photons within the pulse.
The degree of bunching within each pulse is the same as the
bunching of pulses.

You can treat photons as solid bodies, but you cannot treat
pulses as solid bodies.

Also, since you treat photons as solid bodies, your theory
needs to specify how they are emitted. You say that light
is emitted at c relative to the source, but when the source
accelerates, the back end of a photon will have a different
speed from the front end. Your theory could treat photons
as either rigid or elastic, or a combination of both.
Each photon could have a specific wavelength, or the
wavelength could vary from front to back.

Consider a source accelerating in the direction of motion
which is also the direction of emission. The light will
be Doppler shifted, increasing its frequency.

The front end of a photon might be emitted at c relative to
the source. If the back end of the photon is also emitted
at c relative to the source, then either the front end of
the photon must be pushed forward (accelerated) by the rest
of the photon behind it, or the rest of the photon is slowed
by pushing against the front end of the photon, or some
combination of both.

Alternatively, different parts of a photon could be emitted
at different speeds. The front end might be emitted at c
relative to the accelerating source, while the back end is
emitted at a lower speed. For a decelerating source, the
back end would be emitted at a speed greater than c.

Leonard

On 24 Feb 2007 17:03:33 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:

For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change
after emission. The spacing between them DOES.....because
they are moving at different speed wrt the Bcentre.
So the spacing...or bunching... is not a direct indicator
of doppler shift or relative source velocity.. The PULSE
WIDTH is.

Your ballistic theory assumes that the length of a photon
does not change during flight. That is, even though the
source is accelerating, the front and back ends of a photon
travel at the same speed, like a solid particle. It will
be Doppler shifted during emission, but no further Doppler
shift occurs during flight.

According to the BaTh, at constant velocity there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT ON
EMISSION.
If the source is accelerating, I say the wavelength is contracted during
emission....but it retains that length unless it experiences further
acceleration....as for instance in changing speed in a swirl of 'interstellar
medium'..

However, you are attempting to treat pulses from a pulsar
as if they were solid bodies. Instead, each pulse consists
of vast numbers of photons. Just as many pulses can bunch
together during flight, the length of each individual pulse
will change due to bunching of photons within the pulse.
The degree of bunching within each pulse is the same as the
bunching of pulses.

Not quite.
The velocity is changing....and so is the accleration. The ratio of vi/vf will
not generally be the same over 1 us as it is over 1 ms or 1 second.
I'll let you work out the likely differences.

You can treat photons as solid bodies, but you cannot treat
pulses as solid bodies.

Well I told George I would not claim otherwise as far as pulsars are concerned
without knowing a little more about the origins of those pulses.

Also, since you treat photons as solid bodies, your theory
needs to specify how they are emitted. You say that light
is emitted at c relative to the source, but when the source
accelerates, the back end of a photon will have a different
speed from the front end. Your theory could treat photons
as either rigid or elastic, or a combination of both.
Each photon could have a specific wavelength, or the
wavelength could vary from front to back.

My variables program doesn't care if its hypothetical pulses change lengths or
not because it is only interested in the amount of energy they carry.

Consider a source accelerating in the direction of motion
which is also the direction of emission. The light will
be Doppler shifted, increasing its frequency.

It doesn't have to be accelerating. It will do that at constant speed wrt an
observer.

The front end of a photon might be emitted at c relative to
the source. If the back end of the photon is also emitted
at c relative to the source, then either the front end of
the photon must be pushed forward (accelerated) by the rest
of the photon behind it, or the rest of the photon is slowed
by pushing against the front end of the photon, or some
combination of both.

Well I don't think that's what happens at all.
For instance, one model I have likens a photon to a rapidly spinning pair of
+/- charges. They are emitted instantaneouly and have no length as such.
'Wavelength' for them is defined by the helix they carve out as they travel.

Alternatively, different parts of a photon could be emitted
at different speeds. The front end might be emitted at c
relative to the accelerating source, while the back end is
emitted at a lower speed. For a decelerating source, the
back end would be emitted at a speed greater than c.

You are basically reiterating the classical view of Ballistic theory.
Let's use a little modern imagination.

Anyway, I'm not particularly intersted in pulsars at the moment. My program
wasn't designed to deal with them. It generates brightness curves of orbiting
stars.
Still, I would be interested to know if the velocity curves derived from both
pulse WIDTH and pulse SEPARATION variation is generally the same.

Leonard

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

"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message ps.com...

You say that light
is emitted at c relative to the source,

Doesn't it?

Full Loon, huh?

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:49:02 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message ps.com...

You say that light
is emitted at c relative to the source,

Doesn't it?

Full Loon, huh?

They're all the same A, totally indoctrinated....


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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:45:21 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 24 Feb 2007 05:52:25 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
...
Yes that should be true for the pulsar...but it is not true in my
program.....
....
As you say, the width varies by the same fraction as the
gap so it doesn't matter whether you take the ratio of
the observed width to mean width or of the observed gap
to the mean gap, they should give the same apparent speed.

No No No.
For BaTh, the width of the actual pulses DOES NOT change after emission.
The
spacing between them DOES.....because they are moving at different speed
wrt
the Bcentre.

Yes yes yes There are two problems with what you say:

First, the pulses from J1909-3744 are 45us long. Think of
opening the door on the front of an incinerator for a few
seconds then closing it, all this on a planet in orbit round
a star such that the planet is being accelerated towards a
distant observer. That observer sees the thermal radiation
from the fire appear, last a short time then vanish.
According to ballistic theory, the radiation emitted just
before the door closes travels faster than that emitted just
after it opened. The tail of the pulse therefore catches up
with the front so the length of the pulse shortens by exactly
the same ratio as the gap between the pulses.

Point taken ..

Excellent. We now seem to be in full agreement on this
issue. All that remains is for you to correct the program.

.. but there are several problem with what YOU say.

Well let's see.

Firstly that is only true if speed is constant wrt the source.

That is the postulate of ballistic theory so it is not
something you can question. This is where other people's
comments apply, you cannot be selective about when you
use the postulate and assume a speed independent of the
source when the postulate gives an answer you don't
like.

In this orbiting
situation, an acceleration is present..

Yes, it is that acceleration that causes the catch-up effect
which (a) causes one pulse to catch up to the one ahead and
(b) causes the tail of a pulse to catch up to the head.

..and a VARYING one..

Yes, the greatest cach-up is when the pulsar has the highest
acceleration towards the observer. For a circular orbit that
is when the pulsar is directly behind the companion (superior
conjunction). That gives the high peak in the brightness
while half an orbit later it causes a reduction in brightness
as the pulses spread farther apart while travelling.

...meaning that
the two ratios are NOT the same.

No, the ratios are always the same but it means that ratio
varies for light emitted at different places round the orbit.

Secondly it is not terribly clear what actually causes Pulsar pulses.

That doesn't matter, the postulate of ballistic theory must
still be applied.

There is
some kind of interaction between the rotating magentic field and charged
material EXTERNAL to the neutron star itself. There is no certainty that
this
material is rotating at the same rate as the star...more likely it is
'fixed'..... otherwise we wouldn't see sharp pulses at all.
It might not even be rotating with the orbit of the pair.

If that was the case the pulses would not show any Doppler
at all. The whole pulsar system including the neutron star,
the fields, any jets and so on are being moved in an orbit
by the distant white dwarf and ballistic theory then tells
you what the pulse spacing will be.

Second, and more important, nobody uses the width of the
pulse to calculate the Doppler, they use the pulse frequency.

I'm suggesting they should

Tough, they don't. Your red line should be a prediction of
what will be measured using the actual technique employed
by radio astronomers so that it can be compared with the
published curves.

....and according to you it should be the same...

According to the postulate of ballistic theory they must be
the same.

I think I would also suggest there would be a ~90 degree phase shift
between
velocity curves produced by the two methods.

Above you said "point taken". That point requires that they
have the same ratio at all times so no phase shift is
predicted by ballistic theory. You seem to be making a
handwaving claim which contradicts your own theory.

Whether the width changes or not is therefore of no relevance,
unless you use the gap times you won't get a curve that can be
compared to published curves or data derived from them such as
J1909-3744's published orbital parameters.

It might be very relevant. Without precise knowledge of the manner in
which the
pulses are generated, I would not claim for certain that what you say is
wrong
in the case of pulsars...... but this is not a problem for my program
because
the ENERGY in each hypothetical pulse remains the same whether or not its
width
varies as it travels....and the program sums the energy arriving per unit
time
to produce brightness curves.

I am not disputing your brightness curves. There are some
subtleties in energy calculations in ballistic theory but
they would have a very small effect. We may come across
them later.

For the moment, there is a gross error in your red line
which needs to be corrected.

snip photons until the program is fixed for pulsars

So the spacing...or bunching... is not a direct indicator of doppler
shift
or
relative source velocity..
The PULSE WIDTH is.

Apologies to others for apparent shouting but I'll use caps
for emphasis as Henry has.

No Henry, with ballistic theory NOTHING about the signal is
indicative of the original velocity, but that doesn't matter
anyway because NOBODY PUBLISHES VELOCITY CURVES BASED ON THE
PULSE WIDTH.

Because it is obviously rather more difficult...and besides, they don't
want to
reveal the fact that the answers seem quite different when they DO try.

Nonsense, a lot of work goes into that but in most pulsars
there is a lot of variability in the pulse for other reasons.
Anyway, ballistic theory if correctly applied as above says
the two factors should be the same.

big snip - Henry the aspect of optical wavelengths is
more complex and will totally confuse the issue if we get
sidetracked so I'll leave it for another time. Let's
finish the discussion of pulsars and get your program
corrected.

The program does not need correcting.

Yes it does, you have agreed that above. The velocity curve
needs to be derived from the pulse spacing because that is
how astronomers measure the Doppler.

It doesn't operate on pulse
width...rather, pulse energy....and that's near enough to being constant.

No, that's what you do for the brightness curve. You are
confusing the two. The brightness curve is valid, the
red velocity curve is not.

It is correct the way it is.

No, you said above "point taken" and that means the program
is wrong as it stands.

However it is not set up for analysing pulsars
because there are no 'brightness curves' available.

You don't need a brightness curve, the velocity curve tells
you all you need to know which is why you need to correct
the red curve to make the program usable. If you want to
keep your existing inaccurate version, just take a copy and
correct that for the pulsars. That program will let you
analysed the extinction length based on the velocity curve
alone.

George