Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:22:08 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
...
So now that we have confirmed the phase is OK, what does
your program give for the velocity from the blue curve
when the red matches the observations and distance is
3720 light years Henry? You seem to be saying you have
done the work and got a linear scale to read it off but
you haven't actually given me the number yet.

Like I said, I can only give you a figure for the product (blue velocity x
distance).

Like I said, the distance is 3720 light years.

For instance, for an extinction distance of about 120 Ldays, and a red
velocity variation of 0.00019, the blue velocity is about 15m/s.

For 12 Ldays, the blue velocity is 150 m/s.

OK, so for a distance of 3720 light years or 1357830 light
days that would be

15 * 120 / 1357800 = 0.0013 m/s

The orbital circumference would be that times 1.5 days or
172 m, a radius of 27 m. Do you agree with those numbers?

Just as a matter of curiosity, what is your value for the
eccentricity?

The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

George

On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:22:08 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
..
So now that we have confirmed the phase is OK, what does
your program give for the velocity from the blue curve
when the red matches the observations and distance is
3720 light years Henry? You seem to be saying you have
done the work and got a linear scale to read it off but
you haven't actually given me the number yet.

Like I said, I can only give you a figure for the product (blue velocity x
distance).

Like I said, the distance is 3720 light years.

For instance, for an extinction distance of about 120 Ldays, and a red
velocity variation of 0.00019, the blue velocity is about 15m/s.

For 12 Ldays, the blue velocity is 150 m/s.

OK, so for a distance of 3720 light years or 1357830 light
days that would be

15 * 120 / 1357800 = 0.0013 m/s

The orbital circumference would be that times 1.5 days or
172 m, a radius of 27 m. Do you agree with those numbers?

Yes, that is the 'no extinction' case.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what is your value for the
eccentricity?

I used 0.02.
Whether it is 0 or 0.05 is not all that critical.

The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

I'll have to rethink everything now. I'll check what happens in the case of
contact binaries with very short periods and supposedly high orbital speeds.

You might become famous for this George...then man who helped Henri Wilson
prove Einstein wrong.

.....Right now I'm still streamlining my program.

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 Mar 11, 3:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:





"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:22:08 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
..
So now that we have confirmed the phase is OK, what does
your program give for the velocity from the blue curve
when the red matches the observations and distance is
3720 light years Henry? You seem to be saying you have
done the work and got a linear scale to read it off but
you haven't actually given me the number yet.

Like I said, I can only give you a figure for the product (blue velocity x
distance).

Like I said, the distance is 3720 light years.

For instance, for an extinction distance of about 120 Ldays, and a red
velocity variation of 0.00019, the blue velocity is about 15m/s.

For 12 Ldays, the blue velocity is 150 m/s.

OK, so for a distance of 3720 light years or 1357830 light
days that would be

15 * 120 / 1357800 = 0.0013 m/s

The orbital circumference would be that times 1.5 days or
172 m, a radius of 27 m. Do you agree with those numbers?

Yes, that is the 'no extinction' case.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what is your value for the
eccentricity?

I used 0.02.
Whether it is 0 or 0.05 is not all that critical.

The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

I'll have to rethink everything now. I'll check what happens in the case of
contact binaries with very short periods and supposedly high orbital speeds.

You might become famous for this George...then man who helped Henri Wilson
prove Einstein wrong.

Does that mean you are finally going to publish your crap in a
journal? Or at least try?


....Right now I'm still streamlining my program.

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 a écrit :
You might become famous for this George...then man who helped Henri Wilson
prove Einstein wrong.

....Right now I'm still streamlining my program.

Here is a paper on the amazing skills of Henri Wilson on
computing and physics :

http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/Precess...pendencies.pdf

(the *whole* content is made from Wilson's posts from s.r.p.)

and here are some screenshots of his famous "solve-it-all" VB programs :

http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-...er-genious.jpg
http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-...r-genious2.jpg
http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-...r-genious3.jpg
http://zgub.homelinux.org/RH/wilson-...-every-day.jpg

On 11 Mar, 23:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
....
For instance, for an extinction distance of about 120 Ldays, and a red
velocity variation of 0.00019, the blue velocity is about 15m/s.

For 12 Ldays, the blue velocity is 150 m/s.

OK, so for a distance of 3720 light years or 1357830 light
days that would be

15 * 120 / 1357800 = 0.0013 m/s

The orbital circumference would be that times 1.5 days or
172 m, a radius of 27 m. Do you agree with those numbers?

Yes, that is the 'no extinction' case.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what is your value for the
eccentricity?

I used 0.02.
Whether it is 0 or 0.05 is not all that critical.

Bear in mind the published value is around 10^-7 so
the fits are highly accurate. You will probably need
several decimals in you value if you ever get to the
point of claiming you have a match in order to get
your residuals to an acceptable level. However in
terms of the current discussion, what you indicate
is fine, thanks.

The point that is at the back of my mind here is
that you are using the Keplerian variation of speed
for an elliptical orbit to introduce a distortion
of the normal sine wave which compensates for the
variable time the light takes to reach us from
different points on the orbit. I haven't tried to
solve that analytically but I think there is no
guarantee that the distortion from one effect can
exactly compensate that from the other so though
you may be able to say null out the second harmonic
of the orbital frequency, you may not be able to
cancel higher harmonics. It's something you would
have to consider later. Adding a Fourier transform
of the results might be a way to look at this.

The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

So for a true speed of 27983 m/s for example, the
pitch would be acos(0.0013/297983) = 89.9999973
degrees or face-on to within 9.6 milli-arcseconds?

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

Without doubt your "incompressible photon" idea
conflicts with ballistic theory. However, I was
going to point out that a face-on conflicts with
the observation of a Shapiro delay so we can
discard that idea. The next step I was to set the
orbit back to edge on, or better about 11 degrees
from that IIRC, the published value, and then find
out what extinction gives the right values.

You said above for 12 light days, the blue velocity
was 150 m/s but the interesting question then is
what phase does that give?

I'll have to rethink everything now. I'll check what happens in the case of
contact binaries with very short periods and supposedly high orbital speeds.

You might become famous for this George...then man who helped Henri Wilson
prove Einstein wrong.

....Right now I'm still streamlining my program.

Streamlining will help but probably more important
will be including some way to measure the phase
shift between the red and blue curves. I think you
are strating to appreciate how important that factor
is in deciding if you have a match.

A later feature would be the ability to load a set
of obervations and display the residuals but there's
no point worrying about that until you get your hands
on some real numbers rather than printed graphs.

George

On 12 Mar 2007 01:16:33 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 11 Mar, 23:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
...
For instance, for an extinction distance of about 120 Ldays, and a red
velocity variation of 0.00019, the blue velocity is about 15m/s.

For 12 Ldays, the blue velocity is 150 m/s.

OK, so for a distance of 3720 light years or 1357830 light
days that would be

15 * 120 / 1357800 = 0.0013 m/s

The orbital circumference would be that times 1.5 days or
172 m, a radius of 27 m. Do you agree with those numbers?

Yes, that is the 'no extinction' case.

Just as a matter of curiosity, what is your value for the
eccentricity?

I used 0.02.
Whether it is 0 or 0.05 is not all that critical.

Bear in mind the published value is around 10^-7 so
the fits are highly accurate. You will probably need
several decimals in you value if you ever get to the
point of claiming you have a match in order to get
your residuals to an acceptable level. However in
terms of the current discussion, what you indicate
is fine, thanks.

The point that is at the back of my mind here is
that you are using the Keplerian variation of speed
for an elliptical orbit to introduce a distortion
of the normal sine wave which compensates for the
variable time the light takes to reach us from
different points on the orbit. I haven't tried to
solve that analytically but I think there is no
guarantee that the distortion from one effect can
exactly compensate that from the other so though
you may be able to say null out the second harmonic
of the orbital frequency, you may not be able to
cancel higher harmonics. It's something you would
have to consider later. Adding a Fourier transform
of the results might be a way to look at this.

I have now set up the program for both circular and elliptical orbits and there
is very little difference between eccentricity zero and = 0.02. There is about
5% difference if e = 0.06

The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

So for a true speed of 27983 m/s for example, the
pitch would be acos(0.0013/297983) = 89.9999973
degrees or face-on to within 9.6 milli-arcseconds?

Yes....but that is almost certainly not the true speed...or anything like it.

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

Without doubt your "incompressible photon" idea
conflicts with ballistic theory.

Not so George.
I gave you one model where the 'absolute wavelength' was independent of source
acceleration.

However, I was
going to point out that a face-on conflicts with
the observation of a Shapiro delay so we can
discard that idea.

But the phase of the supposed Shapiro delay is based on standard Doppler.
....you seem to be having trouble riding your mind of everything you have been
taught in the past George.

The next step I was to set the
orbit back to edge on, or better about 11 degrees
from that IIRC, the published value, and then find
out what extinction gives the right values.

I'm goint to work on the pitch angle.
I'm not sure how it will explain the relatively high orbital speeds calculated
using standard doppler. These are typically 50 to 250 kms/sec for periods of
less than two days.
It is possible that the true speeds are considerably less than this but that
would mean the orbit diameters would have to be even smaller.

You said above for 12 light days, the blue velocity
was 150 m/s but the interesting question then is
what phase does that give?

Unfortunately, the curve is just a straight line at this level. I will have to
amplify it somehow without it going off screen. I thought I had achieved that
already by something seems to be wrong.
I should imagine the phase difference is pretty close to 90.

I'll have to rethink everything now. I'll check what happens in the case of
contact binaries with very short periods and supposedly high orbital speeds.

You might become famous for this George...then man who helped Henri Wilson
prove Einstein wrong.

....Right now I'm still streamlining my program.

Streamlining will help but probably more important
will be including some way to measure the phase
shift between the red and blue curves. I think you
are strating to appreciate how important that factor
is in deciding if you have a match.

I already know it asymptotes towards 90.

A later feature would be the ability to load a set
of obervations and display the residuals but there's
no point worrying about that until you get your hands
on some real numbers rather than printed graphs.

I'm now vitally interested in pitch as an explanation of my distance
discrepancies.
There should be a predictable statistical distribution of orbit pitch angles.
It will become pretty obvious if this is not followed.

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 12 Mar, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 01:16:33 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 11 Mar, 23:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:sfm8v2lhfb6vmn9nf8ck6n61hlp3dg2rdh@4ax .com...
....
The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

So for a true speed of 27983 m/s for example, the
pitch would be acos(0.0013/297983) = 89.9999973
degrees or face-on to within 9.6 milli-arcseconds?

Yes....but that is almost certainly not the true speed...or anything like it.

Right, it is just a step along the way. As you say
later there should be a statistical spread and if
you predicted every pulsar orbit had to be within
a few mas of face-on, it would indicate a problem.

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

Without doubt your "incompressible photon" idea
conflicts with ballistic theory.

Not so George.
I gave you one model where the 'absolute wavelength' was independent of source
acceleration.

You described that but you didn't derive it by
applying ballistic theory to a waveform and you
won't be able to. What you need to do is go back
to the basics of quantisation and think about why
Planck suggested it in the first place. What you
will find is that ballistic theory requires
decoupling of the frequency (and wavelength) from
the energy carried by a photon, and the frame
dependence of the energy then falls back to the
velocity difference, kinetic energy as you briefly
touched on before. However, I don't want to get
into a long discussion of that until we wrap up
looking at what the pulsar can tell us.

However, I was
going to point out that a face-on conflicts with
the observation of a Shapiro delay so we can
discard that idea.

But the phase of the supposed Shapiro delay is based on standard Doppler.

No, the Shapiro delay must peak at the time of
superior conjunction when the line of sight
passes closest to the dwarf. That is controlled
solely by the geometry of the orbit so it
provides a _reference_ against which the phase
of the Doppler can be measured. Conventionally
for a circular orbit it would be at a point of
zero shift but for ballistic theory the Doppler
will be a combination of velocity and acceleration
terms so the phase relative to the reference can
tell you the ratio of the velocity and acceleration
contributions.

...you seem to be having trouble riding your mind of everything you have been
taught in the past George.

You seem to have trouble realising that phase
tells you lots about the situation :-)

The next step I was to set the
orbit back to edge on, or better about 11 degrees
from that IIRC, the published value, and then find
out what extinction gives the right values.

I'm goint to work on the pitch angle.

Yes, that's important too.

I'm not sure how it will explain the relatively high orbital speeds calculated
using standard doppler. These are typically 50 to 250 kms/sec for periods of
less than two days.
It is possible that the true speeds are considerably less than this but that
would mean the orbit diameters would have to be even smaller.

You said above for 12 light days, the blue velocity
was 150 m/s but the interesting question then is
what phase does that give?

Unfortunately, the curve is just a straight line at this level. I will have to
amplify it somehow without it going off screen. I thought I had achieved that
already by something seems to be wrong.
I should imagine the phase difference is pretty close to 90.

I expect that too. The interesting question that
we will get to soon is what extinction distance
changes the phase to 45 degrees. You might have
to think a bit to see what that will tell us ;-)

Streamlining will help but probably more important
will be including some way to measure the phase
shift between the red and blue curves. I think you
are starting to appreciate how important that factor
is in deciding if you have a match.

I already know it asymptotes towards 90.

Yes, but at the other end I think you will find it
will be very sensitive to the extinction distance.
Anyway, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

George

On 12 Mar 2007 05:11:04 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 12 Mar, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 01:16:33 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 11 Mar, 23:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:sfm8v2lhfb6vmn9nf8ck6n61hlp3dg2rdh@4ax .com...
...
The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

So for a true speed of 27983 m/s for example, the
pitch would be acos(0.0013/297983) = 89.9999973
degrees or face-on to within 9.6 milli-arcseconds?

Yes....but that is almost certainly not the true speed...or anything like it.

Right, it is just a step along the way. As you say
later there should be a statistical spread and if
you predicted every pulsar orbit had to be within
a few mas of face-on, it would indicate a problem.

The problem remains to establish a figure for the true orbital velocity given
that all we have available is the willusion.

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

Without doubt your "incompressible photon" idea
conflicts with ballistic theory.

Not so George.
I gave you one model where the 'absolute wavelength' was independent of source
acceleration.

You described that but you didn't derive it by
applying ballistic theory to a waveform and you
won't be able to. What you need to do is go back
to the basics of quantisation and think about why
Planck suggested it in the first place. What you
will find is that ballistic theory requires
decoupling of the frequency (and wavelength) from
the energy carried by a photon, and the frame
dependence of the energy then falls back to the
velocity difference, kinetic energy as you briefly
touched on before. However, I don't want to get
into a long discussion of that until we wrap up
looking at what the pulsar can tell us.

OK.

However, I was
going to point out that a face-on conflicts with
the observation of a Shapiro delay so we can
discard that idea.

But the phase of the supposed Shapiro delay is based on standard Doppler.

No, the Shapiro delay must peak at the time of
superior conjunction when the line of sight
passes closest to the dwarf.

.....but even Shapiro delay has a different meaning in the BaTh....although the
phase of maximum effect should still coincide with the dwarf being furthest
away. The 'delay' should be negative when the dwarf is closest.

I reckon what is happening in the case of this Pulsar is that the very heavy
neutron star is wobbling relatively slowly around its barycentre with the
dwarf. Its orbital speed could easily be less than 1 km/s. The pitch angle
might be around 60 degres or less.

What would help greatly would be a brightness curve of the dwarf...or at least
something about its velocity variations.

That is controlled
solely by the geometry of the orbit so it
provides a _reference_ against which the phase
of the Doppler can be measured. Conventionally
for a circular orbit it would be at a point of
zero shift but for ballistic theory the Doppler
will be a combination of velocity and acceleration
terms so the phase relative to the reference can
tell you the ratio of the velocity and acceleration
contributions.

I suggest we use the terms ADoppler and VDoppler to distinguish between these
two. ADoppler includes a VDoppler component.

How do we arrive at a true velocity curve when all we have is the ADoppler
willusion? Because of hte VDoppler component, the velocity curve will not
normally be quite the same as my 'brightness' curve. It will be out of phase
and have a different shape until it stabilizes with distance.

If we use a computer simulation we cannot assume the hipparcos distance is
applicable unless we also assume zero extinction....and that is not something I
would like to do at this stage.

...you seem to be having trouble riding your mind of everything you have been
taught in the past George.

You seem to have trouble realising that phase
tells you lots about the situation :-)

No, I can see that the V component will shift the red curve away from the
'brightness curve'...but we need the extinction distance before we can go much
further.

Have you seen this?
http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html

I don't think it is a very accurate description but the phasing is what is
interesting. I'll firget about my 'oncompressible photon' model for a while.

I am able to produce almost the exact brightness curve for RT Aur but my blue
curve is about 90 deg out. If I use ADoppler, that problem is probably removed.

Note the similarity of the two curves....which is what I would expect if my red
curve is closely related to my brightness curve.

The next step I was to set the
orbit back to edge on, or better about 11 degrees
from that IIRC, the published value, and then find
out what extinction gives the right values.

I'm goint to work on the pitch angle.

Yes, that's important too.

It IS now...using ADoppler.

I'm not sure how it will explain the relatively high orbital speeds calculated
using standard doppler. These are typically 50 to 250 kms/sec for periods of
less than two days.
It is possible that the true speeds are considerably less than this but that
would mean the orbit diameters would have to be even smaller.

You said above for 12 light days, the blue velocity
was 150 m/s but the interesting question then is
what phase does that give?

Unfortunately, the curve is just a straight line at this level. I will have to
amplify it somehow without it going off screen. I thought I had achieved that
already by something seems to be wrong.
I should imagine the phase difference is pretty close to 90.

I expect that too. The interesting question that
we will get to soon is what extinction distance
changes the phase to 45 degrees. You might have
to think a bit to see what that will tell us ;-)

Yes I can see the point. ..ADoppler starts to dominate.

Streamlining will help but probably more important
will be including some way to measure the phase
shift between the red and blue curves. I think you
are starting to appreciate how important that factor
is in deciding if you have a match.

I already know it asymptotes towards 90.

Yes, but at the other end I think you will find it
will be very sensitive to the extinction distance.
Anyway, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

I will be working on this today. I've worked out how to program it.



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 12 Mar 2007 05:11:04 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 12 Mar, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
George, I have placed my latest program on the website:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/newvariables.exe

It isn't finished but it includes your method of determining brightness using
the 'bunching factor'.
My original program runs as before using the yellow button.
The new one operates when you click on 'george' at the bottom. (see! it's named
after you)

It is now possible to amplify the brightness curve as much as required by using
the 'output size' combo then clicking 'george' again. You still have to return
to the main screen to change parameters.

I haven't included a red velocity curve in this version because I'm not sure
how to do it yet.


"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 12 Mar, 22:11, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 05:11:04 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 12 Mar, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 01:16:33 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 11 Mar, 23:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:sfm8v2lhfb6vmn9nf8ck6n61hlp3dg2rdh@4ax .com...
....
So for a true speed of 27983 m/s for example, the
pitch would be acos(0.0013/297983) = 89.9999973
degrees or face-on to within 9.6 milli-arcseconds?

Yes....but that is almost certainly not the true speed...or anything like it.

Right, it is just a step along the way. As you say
later there should be a statistical spread and if
you predicted every pulsar orbit had to be within
a few mas of face-on, it would indicate a problem.

The problem remains to establish a figure for the true orbital velocity given
that all we have available is the willusion.

Sure, I'm working towards explaining some of the
methods you can use to do that.

However, I was
going to point out that a face-on conflicts with
the observation of a Shapiro delay so we can
discard that idea.

But the phase of the supposed Shapiro delay is based on standard Doppler.

No, the Shapiro delay must peak at the time of
superior conjunction when the line of sight
passes closest to the dwarf.

....but even Shapiro delay has a different meaning in the BaTh....although the
phase of maximum effect should still coincide with the dwarf being furthest
away. The 'delay' should be negative when the dwarf is closest.

Sort of, you are right that the 'delay' should be
negative but the effect should still be most
significant when it is farthest. As a deviation
from the normal Keplerian effects we usually discuss
GR gives this change of arrival time as a function of
phase:

Advance
|______ ______|
| \/ |
Delay

while ballistic theory predicts this:

Advance
|______/\______|
| |
Delay

Bear in mind we don't know the exact distance to
the pulsar to a few metres, it is only a relative
shift on top of the orbital effects and also the
proper motion of the whole system.

Laying aside the inversion, it still gives a valid
phase reference.

I reckon what is happening in the case of this Pulsar is that the very heavy
neutron star is wobbling relatively slowly around its barycentre with the
dwarf.

Trouble is that you cannot have a "very heavy neutron
star", there is a limit to the ability of neutrons to
resist being crushed.

Its orbital speed could easily be less than 1 km/s. The pitch angle
might be around 60 degres or less.

The pitch can be found from the Shapiro delay just by
comparison with the empirical delay measured near the
Sun without worrying about any particular theory.

What would help greatly would be a brightness curve of the dwarf...or at least
something about its velocity variations.

I haven't seen one yet but since I don't accept
your "incompressible photon" idea it probably
wouldn't help. I want to see how far we can get
using _only_ the pulses where we agree the effects.

That is controlled
solely by the geometry of the orbit so it
provides a _reference_ against which the phase
of the Doppler can be measured. Conventionally
for a circular orbit it would be at a point of
zero shift but for ballistic theory the Doppler
will be a combination of velocity and acceleration
terms so the phase relative to the reference can
tell you the ratio of the velocity and acceleration
contributions.

I suggest we use the terms ADoppler and VDoppler to distinguish between these
two. ADoppler includes a VDoppler component.

OK, but exclude the VDoppler from the VDoppler and
call the combination the total.

How do we arrive at a true velocity curve when all we have is the ADoppler
willusion? Because of hte VDoppler component, the velocity curve will not
normally be quite the same as my 'brightness' curve. It will be out of phase
and have a different shape until it stabilizes with distance.

That's the key, the phase depends on the ratio so
given the Shapiro marker we should be able to find
a maximum value for the extinction distance.

If we use a computer simulation we cannot assume the hipparcos distance is
applicable unless we also assume zero extinction....and that is not something I
would like to do at this stage.

No, what we do is use a combination, if you set the
program distance to the Hipparcos level, you are
assuming no extinction and the result will usually
be multiple images which is ruled out. If you then
set it much less, you are assuming an observe at
infinity and the distance is the extinction. Having
done both, as long as the ratio is large (i.e. the
observer is at a much greater distance than the
extinction) then you can use the latter method. If
it turns out the distances are similar, then you
have to work out the exponential to get a more
accurate figure for extinction using the known
Hipparcos range.

...you seem to be having trouble riding your mind of everything you have been
taught in the past George.

You seem to have trouble realising that phase
tells you lots about the situation :-)

No, I can see that the V component will shift the red curve away from the
'brightness curve'...but we need the extinction distance before we can go much
further.

For a circular orbit, when the phase is 45 degrees
relative to the Shapiro peak, the ADoppler component
is equal to the VDoppler which tells you the extinction.
It will be more complex for an elliptical orbit but
that's where you program comes in.

Have you seen this?http://mb-soft.com/public2/cepheid.html

Crank crap I'm afraid. He makes the point that the
infalling acceleration is only 0.16 m/s^2 while the
surface gravity is 0.93 m/s^2 and suggests that's a
problem. Of course all it means is that the upward
pressure has dropped from slightly more than 0.93
when the star was expanding to about 0.77 m/s^2 or
5/6ths of the gravity when it is collapsing.

I had a look at some of his other stuff and it is
pretty clueless.

... The interesting question that
we will get to soon is what extinction distance
changes the phase to 45 degrees. You might have
to think a bit to see what that will tell us ;-)

Yes I can see the point. ..ADoppler starts to dominate.

Not only that, the two are equal at that point
so you know the extinction. Below that or in
particular for smaller phase angles, the phase
becomes close to proportional so if you calculate
the extinction at say 10 degrees then that at 1
degree will be about 1/10th the distance. It lets
you work out the maximum value based on the
uncertainty in the phase shift of the conventional
analysis.

George