Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2007 01:45:05 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 23 Feb, 09:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
....
It could easily be generated in radiation belts around
the whole binary system. That might act as a local EM reference frame

You still haven't learned what "reference frame" means.

Don't be silly George. I am using the term loosely here.

You are using it completely wrongly here.

The actual reference frame is that of the barycentre. I'm saying there is
a
surrounding 'field' of some description that is virtually at rest wrt the
barycentre and which tends to unify the speed of all light inside the
region to
'c' WRT the region. I say 'tends to' becuase its effect must obviously
taper
off with distance from the centre.
When I said the field 'constitutes a local reference frame' I mean 'the
field
defines the same frame as the barycentre' and can be used as a reference
for
light speed. It is just as legitimate to say 'speed wrt the barycentre' as
'speed wrt the field'. They have the same meaning.

Utter garbage. You say later:

The origin of this frame is the barycentre of the pair.

The origin of a frame is whatever origin you use
for the measured values.

I didn't mean 'origin' as in 0,0 on a graph.

That's essentially what "reference frame" means, though it
doesn't imply a specific style of graph paper. It means
nothing more than the refernce point for measurements.

I meant the frame owes its existence to the fact that there is a definable
centre of mass for the whole system.

No, a frame owes its existence to the fact that someone
has decided to choose a particular reference point for
his graph paper.

and unify
the emitted light speeds.

We are assuming its speed wrt Earth varies between about c+/-
0.00009.

No, we are taking as a given that the time between
pulse arrivals varies by about 90 parts per million.
Some of that variation is due to the velocity but
some will be due to c+v pulses catching up to c-v
pulses a little in the time before extinction
equalises their speeds.

...and that results in exactly the same doppler shift as your own model.

What do you mean by my "own model", SR or my
corrections to your Ritzian version?

SR.

The only basic difference is that for small values of v, one uses the
equation
(c+v)/c and the other c/(c-v).

No, both those are for sound or a Galilean aether. For
SR the formula is sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) as confirmed by Ives
and Stilwell.

If frequency f is transmitted and received as f' then:

f'/f = (c+v)/c

Define df = f' - f

df/f = v/c

For v c both c/(c-v) and sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) give the
same expression with slight differences in the second
order part. Hence publications use a simple convention
when changing Doppler to radial speed: v/c = df/f
That's what you need to do in your program.

....
You are still using an iterative method when a direct
calculation would do the job. It suggests you aren't
really comfortable with this level of maths.

George, I DO use an equation. ...the sum of the above GP.
The problem is, every sample point around the orbit has a different
value for
v.

I am suggesting you only need to calculate t = vR/c^2
for the value of v at each point rather than your
iterative sum at each point.

Sorry, I'm not with you.
What's R? It has dimensions of length.
I can't see an extinction RATE anywhere there.

The rate would be a function of time so as an exponential
it would include exp(-t/T) where T is some constant. The
speed difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in time T.

As a function of distance the term is exp(-t/R) where
R is the distance travelled in time T. Again the speed
difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in distance R.

We'll see when you un-normalise the curves, I hadn't
realised you did that and thought you meant the physics
made their height the same.

Their heights ARE almost the same for small magnitude variations.
Without extinction, the amplitude of the red curve cannot be any greater
than
that of the blue one.

That is where you are wrong, without extinction the
red curve increases with distance until the peaks
reaches c at the critical distance. With extinction
the red curve starts rising above the blue but is
asymptotic to a constant curve and will be close to
that at several times the extinction distance.

George I think we are talking about different things again.

I'll explain what the two curves represent.
The blue one is the true c+v lightspeed wrt a flat plane normal to the
observer
LOS and close to the source. (We can ignore travel time across the orbit).

It is the true velocity at that time so "travel time across the
orbit" doesn't come into it, but yes we both understand what the
curve represents.

The program assumes that hypothetical pulses of equal brightness are
emitted at
regular time intervals by the source as it orbits. At the observer
distance,
these pulses arrive in different concentrations, due to bunching.

Again we both understand that. Now what the red curve is supposed
to be is the "observed source velocity". I put that in quotes
because we cannot actually measure the source velocity directly
so what is done is the recedived pulse rate is published as a
velocity by applying the convention v/c = df/f. Your program
calculates the concentration of the pulses so all you need to do
is scale that as velocity and display it as the red curve.

The program divides the orbit period into 500 equal time intervals and
counts
the number of pulses that arrive at the observer in each interval. This is
a
direct indicator of apparent brightness variation.

It is also the value that is used to work out the velocity in
actual observations.

The red curve is derived by averaging the true SOURCE velocities of all
the
pulses that arrive in each particular interval.

That is where your error lies.

The maximum of the blue curve
is c+v. So the maximum of the red curve can never be higher than that.

Yes it can, the bunching due to acceleration causes a false
velocity to be calculated using v/c = df/f which can produce
significantly higher values.

Certainly there are points on the red curve that are higher than those of
the
blue at the same phase....but that's not the issue.

It is actually, the acceleration part is 90 degrees out of
phase with the velocity (more complex for an elliptical
orbit) and the observed phase is a mix of the two. That's
what we want to predict which is why you need to correct
your calculation.

George

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:32:32 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Feb 2007 01:45:05 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 23 Feb, 09:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
...
It could easily be generated in radiation belts around
the whole binary system. That might act as a local EM reference frame

You still haven't learned what "reference frame" means.

Don't be silly George. I am using the term loosely here.

You are using it completely wrongly here.

The actual reference frame is that of the barycentre. I'm saying there is
a
surrounding 'field' of some description that is virtually at rest wrt the
barycentre and which tends to unify the speed of all light inside the
region to
'c' WRT the region. I say 'tends to' becuase its effect must obviously
taper
off with distance from the centre.
When I said the field 'constitutes a local reference frame' I mean 'the
field
defines the same frame as the barycentre' and can be used as a reference
for
light speed. It is just as legitimate to say 'speed wrt the barycentre' as
'speed wrt the field'. They have the same meaning.

Utter garbage. You say later:

The origin of this frame is the barycentre of the pair.

The origin of a frame is whatever origin you use
for the measured values.

I didn't mean 'origin' as in 0,0 on a graph.

That's essentially what "reference frame" means, though it
doesn't imply a specific style of graph paper. It means
nothing more than the refernce point for measurements.

Oh Dear! ...and I thought I had been conversing with somebody who was a little
more intelligent than the others....

Have another think George.

I meant the frame owes its existence to the fact that there is a definable
centre of mass for the whole system.

No, a frame owes its existence to the fact that someone
has decided to choose a particular reference point for
his graph paper.

Load of crap George.
A frame is not a POINT.
A frame is everything at rest wrt a defined point....All frames are infinite.

and unify
the emitted light speeds.

We are assuming its speed wrt Earth varies between about c+/-
0.00009.

No, we are taking as a given that the time between
pulse arrivals varies by about 90 parts per million.
Some of that variation is due to the velocity but
some will be due to c+v pulses catching up to c-v
pulses a little in the time before extinction
equalises their speeds.

...and that results in exactly the same doppler shift as your own model.

What do you mean by my "own model", SR or my
corrections to your Ritzian version?

SR.

The only basic difference is that for small values of v, one uses the
equation
(c+v)/c and the other c/(c-v).

No, both those are for sound or a Galilean aether. For
SR the formula is sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) as confirmed by Ives
and Stilwell.

If frequency f is transmitted and received as f' then:

f'/f = (c+v)/c

Define df = f' - f

df/f = v/c

For v c both c/(c-v) and sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) give the
same expression with slight differences in the second
order part. Hence publications use a simple convention
when changing Doppler to radial speed: v/c = df/f
That's what you need to do in your program.

My program is correct...and I don't predict speeds, I use the published
figures.
The doppler equations for BaTh, LET and SR are virtually identical for small v.

I am suggesting you only need to calculate t = vR/c^2
for the value of v at each point rather than your
iterative sum at each point.

Sorry, I'm not with you.
What's R? It has dimensions of length.
I can't see an extinction RATE anywhere there.

The rate would be a function of time so as an exponential
it would include exp(-t/T) where T is some constant. The
speed difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in time T.



As a function of distance the term is exp(-t/R) where
R is the distance travelled in time T. Again the speed
difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in distance R.

Using Time or length is virtually the same anyway. I use length for my xrate.

I don't think the exponential approach is workable because the integral is
definite.
My series solution is far better.



George I think we are talking about different things again.

I'll explain what the two curves represent.
The blue one is the true c+v lightspeed wrt a flat plane normal to the
observer
LOS and close to the source. (We can ignore travel time across the orbit).

It is the true velocity at that time so "travel time across the
orbit" doesn't come into it, but yes we both understand what the
curve represents.

The program assumes that hypothetical pulses of equal brightness are
emitted at
regular time intervals by the source as it orbits. At the observer
distance,
these pulses arrive in different concentrations, due to bunching.

Again we both understand that. Now what the red curve is supposed
to be is the "observed source velocity". I put that in quotes
because we cannot actually measure the source velocity directly
so what is done is the recedived pulse rate is published as a
velocity by applying the convention v/c = df/f. Your program
calculates the concentration of the pulses so all you need to do
is scale that as velocity and display it as the red curve.

No you are missing the point entirely. Forget pulsars for a minute. In BaTh,
the pulse concentration is NOT a simple doppler effect. There is NO doppler
shift at the source. The 'colour' of the light in the pulses DOES NOT change no
matter how the pulses 'bunch' together.
My program averages the 'source colour' of the light that arrives in a certain
time interval. It uses that to produce the red curve.

You are using the classical approach to claim that the two 'ends' of a photon
will move at different speeds when and if emitted while their source is
accelerating. You claim the ends will continue to move relatively are they
travel. ...and end up with the same doppler pattern as the 'pulse bunching'.
So for a photon to catch another, its rear end would catch its front, giving it
zero length. (for constant aceleration, anyway)

I say the 'length' of each emitted photon IS affected by the source's
acceleration but that this ABSOLUTE length does not continue to change during
inertial travel.
I say it is as though a minute rigid rod connects each 'intrinsic wavecrest' of
a photon. The lengths of those 'rods' will change only during an acceleration
of the photon.


The program divides the orbit period into 500 equal time intervals and
counts
the number of pulses that arrive at the observer in each interval. This is
a
direct indicator of apparent brightness variation.

It is also the value that is used to work out the velocity in
actual observations.

Nah. It doesn't work like that.

The red curve is derived by averaging the true SOURCE velocities of all
the
pulses that arrive in each particular interval.

That is where your error lies.

George, as a matter of interest I might investigate your claim further. It
could only work for fairly small magnitude changes but might actually provide
some interesting results.
It would mean generally that observed velocities are much greater than the true
ones. It might even explain why my predicted distances are always shorter then
the official ones.
If this is true and I don't need much 'unification' at all, then it will
provide almost unassailable proof that the BaTh is correct.

But I'm not very optimistic that it will....

The maximum of the blue curve
is c+v. So the maximum of the red curve can never be higher than that.

Yes it can, the bunching due to acceleration causes a false
velocity to be calculated using v/c = df/f which can produce
significantly higher values.

Certainly there are points on the red curve that are higher than those of
the
blue at the same phase....but that's not the issue.

It is actually, the acceleration part is 90 degrees out of
phase with the velocity (more complex for an elliptical
orbit) and the observed phase is a mix of the two. That's
what we want to predict which is why you need to correct
your calculation.

You might be sorry you talked me into investigating this...

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
...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:32:32 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 23 Feb 2007 01:45:05 -0800, "George Dishman"

wrote:
On 23 Feb, 09:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
...
It could easily be generated in radiation belts around
the whole binary system. That might act as a local EM reference frame

You still haven't learned what "reference frame" means.

Don't be silly George. I am using the term loosely here.

You are using it completely wrongly here.

The actual reference frame is that of the barycentre. I'm saying there
is
a
surrounding 'field' of some description that is virtually at rest wrt
the
barycentre and which tends to unify the speed of all light inside the
region to
'c' WRT the region. I say 'tends to' becuase its effect must obviously
taper
off with distance from the centre.
When I said the field 'constitutes a local reference frame' I mean 'the
field
defines the same frame as the barycentre' and can be used as a reference
for
light speed. It is just as legitimate to say 'speed wrt the barycentre'
as
'speed wrt the field'. They have the same meaning.

Utter garbage. You say later:

The origin of this frame is the barycentre of the pair.

The origin of a frame is whatever origin you use
for the measured values.

I didn't mean 'origin' as in 0,0 on a graph.

That's essentially what "reference frame" means, though it
doesn't imply a specific style of graph paper. It means
nothing more than the refernce point for measurements.

Oh Dear! ...and I thought I had been conversing with somebody who was a
little
more intelligent than the others....

Have another think George.

I meant the frame owes its existence to the fact that there is a
definable
centre of mass for the whole system.

No, a frame owes its existence to the fact that someone
has decided to choose a particular reference point for
his graph paper.

Load of crap George.
A frame is not a POINT.

No Henry, but the origin is.

A frame is everything at rest wrt a defined point....All frames are
infinite.

and unify
the emitted light speeds.

We are assuming its speed wrt Earth varies between about c+/-
0.00009.

No, we are taking as a given that the time between
pulse arrivals varies by about 90 parts per million.
Some of that variation is due to the velocity but
some will be due to c+v pulses catching up to c-v
pulses a little in the time before extinction
equalises their speeds.

...and that results in exactly the same doppler shift as your own
model.

What do you mean by my "own model", SR or my
corrections to your Ritzian version?

SR.

The only basic difference is that for small values of v, one uses the
equation
(c+v)/c and the other c/(c-v).

No, both those are for sound or a Galilean aether. For
SR the formula is sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) as confirmed by Ives
and Stilwell.

If frequency f is transmitted and received as f' then:

f'/f = (c+v)/c

Define df = f' - f

df/f = v/c

For v c both c/(c-v) and sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) give the
same expression with slight differences in the second
order part. Hence publications use a simple convention
when changing Doppler to radial speed: v/c = df/f
That's what you need to do in your program.

My program is correct...

No Henry, it isn't. You have already agreed the reasons
why it isn't correct.

and I don't predict speeds, I use the published
figures.

Your graph is not comparable to the published figures
because it does not calculate the value the way the
observations are obtained. the published figures are
based on the pulse rate alone, your aren't so your
red curve is useless.

The doppler equations for BaTh, LET and SR are virtually identical for
small v.

Not true.

I am suggesting you only need to calculate t = vR/c^2
for the value of v at each point rather than your
iterative sum at each point.

Sorry, I'm not with you.
What's R? It has dimensions of length.
I can't see an extinction RATE anywhere there.

The rate would be a function of time so as an exponential
it would include exp(-t/T) where T is some constant. The
speed difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in time T.



As a function of distance the term is exp(-t/R) where
R is the distance travelled in time T. Again the speed
difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in distance R.

Using Time or length is virtually the same anyway. I use length for my
xrate.

Exactly.

I don't think the exponential approach is workable because the integral is
definite.

Wrong again Henry, my simple equation is the result of your sum.

My series solution is far better.

No, it is only an approximation to the value I gave you,
but carry on using it if you like, it will give close to
the right answer, just slower.

George I think we are talking about different things again.

I'll explain what the two curves represent.
The blue one is the true c+v lightspeed wrt a flat plane normal to the
observer
LOS and close to the source. (We can ignore travel time across the
orbit).

It is the true velocity at that time so "travel time across the
orbit" doesn't come into it, but yes we both understand what the
curve represents.

The program assumes that hypothetical pulses of equal brightness are
emitted at
regular time intervals by the source as it orbits. At the observer
distance,
these pulses arrive in different concentrations, due to bunching.

Again we both understand that. Now what the red curve is supposed
to be is the "observed source velocity". I put that in quotes
because we cannot actually measure the source velocity directly
so what is done is the recedived pulse rate is published as a
velocity by applying the convention v/c = df/f. Your program
calculates the concentration of the pulses so all you need to do
is scale that as velocity and display it as the red curve.

No you are missing the point entirely. Forget pulsars for a minute.

No Henry we are talking _only_ about pulses for pulsars at the
moment. There are other considerations when looking at spectral
lines that will take a lot of sorting out but pulsars are
straightforward because they are long, independent bursts of
energy. You have already agreed all the relevant features, the
gaps between pulses are affected by acceleration as are the
pulse lengths so there is no doubt about the physics involved.
All you need to do now is code it correctly.

I'll be delighted to discuss otrher aspects once we finish with
pulsars but I have spent several weeks discussing J1909-3744
with you to the point where we have agreed all that is needed.

If you won't complete that topic, I am certain you won't
complete any other discussion either so it's a waste of time
starting.

snip photon stuff until later

The program divides the orbit period into 500 equal time intervals and
counts
the number of pulses that arrive at the observer in each interval. This
is
a
direct indicator of apparent brightness variation.

It is also the value that is used to work out the velocity in
actual observations.

Nah. It doesn't work like that.

Yes it does, that's how the astronomers do it so that's
what you have to do if your curve is to be comparable
to their results. If you don't, you have no way to use
the published data.

The red curve is derived by averaging the true SOURCE velocities of all
the
pulses that arrive in each particular interval.

That is where your error lies.

George, as a matter of interest I might investigate your claim further. It
could only work for fairly small magnitude changes but might actually
provide
some interesting results.
It would mean generally that observed velocities are much greater than the
true
ones.

Yes! That's why any attempt at using published data
must be compared with a curve generated by the same
method, your prgram must duplicate their technique.
At present your outputs are worthless.

You might be sorry you talked me into investigating this...

I won't be sorry no matter what it produces. At the
moment your program is unusable. I have a good idea
of amplitudes but I am less confident of my guess
about the phase shift it will produce so let's see
what it does.

George

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:07:58 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:45:21 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

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.

Well the program is correct as far as producing brightness curves.

What YOU are asking is that I predict the true velocity curve from the
willusory one we obtain on Earth. Then, since my brightness curves are based on
TRUE radial velocities and since my observed radial velocities are now to be
based on the brightness curve, I will have to step by step, change the various
parameters until I find the true radial velocity curve that results in my red
curve looking like my brightness curve.

I'm not sure this is possible.



.. 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.

There is a second order accelertion effect that might be important.
For instance the velocity ratio is not the same across a 100 nanosec pulse as
it is across a 0.1 second pulse gap.

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

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

Not necessarily.

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.

Maybe...maybe not..

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 astronomers wrongly assume that the red curve is always identical to the
blue one....because Einstein said so...

....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.

no...just jumping from one theory to another...

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.

Yes, I have thought of including KE ...but I think it's pretty negligible.

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

Well I might see what I can do. ..just to make you happy.

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.

.....only according to the classical view.
My photons don't have ends that continue to move.


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.

This will take some time...

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.

....we'll see. If we are both correct then ALL astronomy will be turned oinits
head.

It is correct the way it is.

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

It wasn't designed for pulsars, George.

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.

I'll just add another function.
It wont be that hard actually.

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
...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:07:58 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:45:21 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

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.

Well the program is correct as far as producing brightness curves.

Yes, I have always agreed that.

What YOU are asking is that I predict the true velocity curve from the
willusory one we obtain on Earth. Then, since my brightness curves are
based on
TRUE radial velocities and since my observed radial velocities are now to
be
based on the brightness curve, I will have to step by step, change the
various
parameters until I find the true radial velocity curve that results in my
red
curve looking like my brightness curve.

I'm not sure this is possible.

All you do is change the program to create the red curve
from the blue speeds using ballistic theory to predict
the arrival rate (which the program already does) and
then calculate the apparent (or "willusory") radial speed
in the same way as the radio astronomers do. For low
speeds, which is all we ever see, you can just use
v/c = df/f so for J1909-3744 it's about +/- 90 parts per
million of c.

The green curve is logarithmic and in magnitudes while the
red curve is linear and in units of km/s.

All that is certainly possible, in fact almost trivial as
you have already done the hard part, finding the received
pulse rate.

If you mean getting the parameters to match may not
be possible, that would just say ballistic theory
was wrong. However, you will be able to get a match
with a sufficiently low extinction because in the
limit is becomes SR.

.. 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.

There is a second order accelertion effect that might be important.

I don't believe there is a second order term but again
it must be the same for both pulse period and pulse width.

For instance the velocity ratio is not the same across a 100 nanosec pulse
as
it is across a 0.1 second pulse gap.

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

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

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily, if that's the way your theory says
light behaves then it always behaves that way. That's
what scientific tesing is all about. If your theory
gives a wrong prediction, you cannot just use SR for
the bits where ballistic is wrong.

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.

Maybe...maybe not..

Maybe, maybe not, but any alternative must explain
the perceived Doppler by applying the postulate of
ballistic theory whatever that implies.

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 astronomers wrongly assume that the red curve is always identical to
the
blue one....because Einstein said so...

So here's your chance to prove it. Just fix the program.

....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.

no...just jumping from one theory to another...

Ah, you meant "produced by the two /theories/", not
mrethods. OK.

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.

Yes, I have thought of including KE ...but I think it's pretty negligible.

That's it.

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

Well I might see what I can do. ..just to make you happy.

Cool. The last several weeks of discussion will have been
totally pointless if you don't and I have better things to
do with my time (as the wife keeps telling me).

Anyway, ballistic theory if correctly applied as above says
the two factors should be the same.

....only according to the classical view.
My photons don't have ends that continue to move.

We don't agree on that aspect but it needn't come into
consideration of pulsars at this stage.

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.

This will take some time...

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.

...we'll see. If we are both correct then ALL astronomy will be turned
oinits
head.

It is correct the way it is.

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

It wasn't designed for pulsars, George.

It was designed for accelerated sources of EM so it should
work for them too.

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.

I'll just add another function.
It wont be that hard actually.

OK, as long as you can get some screenshots, it doesn't
matter how you go about it.

Thanks for doing that Henry.

George

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:43:54 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:32:32 -0000, "George Dishman"

That's essentially what "reference frame" means, though it
doesn't imply a specific style of graph paper. It means
nothing more than the refernce point for measurements.

Oh Dear! ...and I thought I had been conversing with somebody who was a
little
more intelligent than the others....

Have another think George.

I meant the frame owes its existence to the fact that there is a
definable
centre of mass for the whole system.

No, a frame owes its existence to the fact that someone
has decided to choose a particular reference point for
his graph paper.

Load of crap George.
A frame is not a POINT.

No Henry, but the origin is.

A velocity reference frame - that's what we are talking about - doesn't have an
origin, George.



df/f = v/c

For v c both c/(c-v) and sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) give the
same expression with slight differences in the second
order part. Hence publications use a simple convention
when changing Doppler to radial speed: v/c = df/f
That's what you need to do in your program.

My program is correct...

No Henry, it isn't. You have already agreed the reasons
why it isn't correct.

It's correct in rspect of what it is intended to do.
It wasn't designed to determine the velocity curves of pulsars.

and I don't predict speeds, I use the published
figures.

Your graph is not comparable to the published figures
because it does not calculate the value the way the
observations are obtained. the published figures are
based on the pulse rate alone, your aren't so your
red curve is useless.

OK, I will assume the published curve is symmetrical, indicating a very
circular orbit. I know the calculated limits.

The doppler equations for BaTh, LET and SR are virtually identical for
small v.

Not true.

....and why not? You just provided the SR one. Can't you do the maths that shows
it's the same as the BaTh and LET equation for small v.

I am suggesting you only need to calculate t = vR/c^2
for the value of v at each point rather than your
iterative sum at each point.

Sorry, I'm not with you.
What's R? It has dimensions of length.
I can't see an extinction RATE anywhere there.

The rate would be a function of time so as an exponential
it would include exp(-t/T) where T is some constant. The
speed difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in time T.



As a function of distance the term is exp(-t/R) where
R is the distance travelled in time T. Again the speed
difference would fall to 1/e or 37% in distance R.

Using Time or length is virtually the same anyway. I use length for my
xrate.

Exactly.

I don't think the exponential approach is workable because the integral is
definite.

Wrong again Henry, my simple equation is the result of your sum.

My series solution is far better.

No, it is only an approximation to the value I gave you,
but carry on using it if you like, it will give close to
the right answer, just slower.

I doubt if it is any slower. Its takes almost negligible time anyway.



The program assumes that hypothetical pulses of equal brightness are
emitted at
regular time intervals by the source as it orbits. At the observer
distance,
these pulses arrive in different concentrations, due to bunching.

Again we both understand that. Now what the red curve is supposed
to be is the "observed source velocity". I put that in quotes
because we cannot actually measure the source velocity directly
so what is done is the recedived pulse rate is published as a
velocity by applying the convention v/c = df/f. Your program
calculates the concentration of the pulses so all you need to do
is scale that as velocity and display it as the red curve.

No you are missing the point entirely. Forget pulsars for a minute.

No Henry we are talking _only_ about pulses for pulsars at the
moment. There are other considerations when looking at spectral
lines that will take a lot of sorting out but pulsars are
straightforward because they are long, independent bursts of
energy. You have already agreed all the relevant features, the
gaps between pulses are affected by acceleration as are the
pulse lengths so there is no doubt about the physics involved.
All you need to do now is code it correctly.

...and this will be fun...

I'll be delighted to discuss otrher aspects once we finish with
pulsars but I have spent several weeks discussing J1909-3744
with you to the point where we have agreed all that is needed.

Pulsar PSR 1913+16 is another good one...but I have never seen so much
relativistic rubbish in my life as that from Hulse and Taylor.

If you won't complete that topic, I am certain you won't
complete any other discussion either so it's a waste of time
starting.

snip photon stuff until later

The program divides the orbit period into 500 equal time intervals and
counts
the number of pulses that arrive at the observer in each interval. This
is
a
direct indicator of apparent brightness variation.

It is also the value that is used to work out the velocity in
actual observations.

Nah. It doesn't work like that.

Yes it does, that's how the astronomers do it so that's
what you have to do if your curve is to be comparable
to their results. If you don't, you have no way to use
the published data.

Individual photons don't behave like pulsar pulses. The latter contain many
photons that can move relatively.

The red curve is derived by averaging the true SOURCE velocities of all
the
pulses that arrive in each particular interval.

That is where your error lies.

George, as a matter of interest I might investigate your claim further. It
could only work for fairly small magnitude changes but might actually
provide
some interesting results.
It would mean generally that observed velocities are much greater than the
true
ones.

Yes! That's why any attempt at using published data
must be compared with a curve generated by the same
method, your prgram must duplicate their technique.
At present your outputs are worthless.

My outputs are NOT intended for analysing pulsar pulses.

You might be sorry you talked me into investigating this...

I won't be sorry no matter what it produces. At the
moment your program is unusable. I have a good idea
of amplitudes but I am less confident of my guess
about the phase shift it will produce so let's see
what it does.

Now you're being stupid again.
My program does exactly what it is designed to do and it does it ACCURATELY.

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 Mon, 26 Feb 2007 00:15:09 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:07:58 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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

be
based on the brightness curve, I will have to step by step, change the
various
parameters until I find the true radial velocity curve that results in my
red
curve looking like my brightness curve.

I'm not sure this is possible.

All you do is change the program to create the red curve
from the blue speeds using ballistic theory to predict
the arrival rate (which the program already does) and
then calculate the apparent (or "willusory") radial speed
in the same way as the radio astronomers do. For low
speeds, which is all we ever see, you can just use
v/c = df/f so for J1909-3744 it's about +/- 90 parts per
million of c.

Well I'll look into it.

The green curve is logarithmic and in magnitudes while the
red curve is linear and in units of km/s.

I can print it as linear .


All that is certainly possible, in fact almost trivial as
you have already done the hard part, finding the received
pulse rate.

It isn't trivial.
The red curve should always match the green one. I have to find the blue curve
that makes this happen.

If you mean getting the parameters to match may not
be possible, that would just say ballistic theory
was wrong. However, you will be able to get a match
with a sufficiently low extinction because in the
limit is becomes SR.

It isn't going to prove the BaTh wrong whatever the outcome. Pulses aren't
photons.



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

There is a second order accelertion effect that might be important.

I don't believe there is a second order term but again
it must be the same for both pulse period and pulse width.

George, slow it down a bit. Consider what happens if the orbit period is, say,
50 hours and the pulse emission rate once per hour.
You should be able to see that both the velocity and acceleration change
considerably during that hour.
So the pulse width will NOT match the pulse spacing at all.


For instance the velocity ratio is not the same across a 100 nanosec pulse
as
it is across a 0.1 second pulse gap.

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

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

Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily, if that's the way your theory says
light behaves then it always behaves that way. That's
what scientific tesing is all about. If your theory
gives a wrong prediction, you cannot just use SR for
the bits where ballistic is wrong.

But you can't produce a 'brightness curve' for the pulsar...so neither you nor
I know what it is that I'm supposed to be matching.

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.

Maybe...maybe not..

Maybe, maybe not, but any alternative must explain
the perceived Doppler by applying the postulate of
ballistic theory whatever that implies.

I suppose you want to assume that the brightness curve of the pulsar can be
inferred from the bunching of the pulses...since their energy should not change
even if their widths DO.
If you would like to produce such a curve I will try to match it...the I'll
worry about getting the red curve right.

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 astronomers wrongly assume that the red curve is always identical to
the
blue one....because Einstein said so...

So here's your chance to prove it. Just fix the program.

The program is 'fixed', for light.


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.

no...just jumping from one theory to another...

Ah, you meant "produced by the two /theories/", not
mrethods. OK.

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.

Yes, I have thought of including KE ...but I think it's pretty negligible.

That's it.

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

Well I might see what I can do. ..just to make you happy.

Cool. The last several weeks of discussion will have been
totally pointless if you don't and I have better things to
do with my time (as the wife keeps telling me).

(mine is away at present. I think I need a new one.)

You could have written your own program by now. ..and found the answer.

Anyway, ballistic theory if correctly applied as above says
the two factors should be the same.

....only according to the classical view.
My photons don't have ends that continue to move.

We don't agree on that aspect but it needn't come into
consideration of pulsars at this stage.

Yes. I'm glad you reminded my to convert back to linear magnitudes. I might
have overlooked that.



...we'll see. If we are both correct then ALL astronomy will be turned
oinits
head.

It is correct the way it is.

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

It wasn't designed for pulsars, George.

It was designed for accelerated sources of EM so it should
work for them too.

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.

I'll just add another function.
It wont be that hard actually.

OK, as long as you can get some screenshots, it doesn't
matter how you go about it.

Thanks for doing that Henry.

I haven't started yet....but I might tonight.
I've wasted most of the day trying to get a Skype phone to operate properly.

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 Feb 25, 5:23 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Load of crap George.
A frame is not a POINT.
A frame is everything at rest wrt a defined point....All frames are infinite.


Why, Henri, there you go again. You've said something stupid. Where on
earth did you get the idea that a frame is everything at rest with
respect to a defined point?

PD

On Feb 26, 1:22 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:


A velocity reference frame - that's what we are talking about - doesn't have an
origin, George.


And here Henri decides it's a good idea to invent a new term and claim
that it's in wide use: "velocity reference frame". I wonder what he
means by it?

PD

On 26 Feb 2007 05:11:11 -0800, "PD" wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:23 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Load of crap George.
A frame is not a POINT.
A frame is everything at rest wrt a defined point....All frames are infinite.


Why, Henri, there you go again. You've said something stupid. Where on
earth did you get the idea that a frame is everything at rest with
respect to a defined point?


PD

Go away and learn some physics Draper.
You are clueless.

What is YOUR definition of a FoR?
"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.