Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 09:23:43 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


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

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

Leonard

"Positive roll is right wing down, positive pitch is nose up, and positive yaw is east when heading north."


Positive roll is right wing down = clockwise seen from tail.
Positive pitch is nose up = clockwise seen from port wing.
Positive yaw is east when heading north = clockwise seen from above.

This is sci.physics.relativity not sci.flyingwithyoureyesshut .....

Roll is not required in my method. I 'rotate the telescope'.
My pitch is the same as yours but my YAW is measured looking upwards rather
than down.

Mathematical angle is positive counterclockwise so you'll never
be sure you are talking about the same thing.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Androcube.gif

This has all been explained to Wilson before, his standard response
is "No", which he learns from Bielawski, Draper, Dishman and Poe,
rendering him ineducable.

Bielawski understands Poles are the butt of American jokes but
does not know how far it is from A to A.

"The answer was zero." - Androcles

.....and "the odomoter of my car reads always zero when it is parked in the same
spot" - Androcles



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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:08 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B ...
....
When you can plot linear velocities (blue and red) with
scales in m/s and brightness curves in magnitude as well
as relate them to the orbital phase using the Shapiro
effect and use those to determine the orbital parameters
and the speed equalisation distance, then we will look at
all three. My guess is that you will find more excuses
for not doing the work because you are scared of what you
will find.

You are asking me to match data, wrongly interpreted with Einsteiniana,
..

No, I'm challenging you to match the data recorded at
the observatory using ballistic theory only, but that
includes matching the orbital phase.

How do we know the orbital phase of a variable star George?

Who is talking about variable stars Henry? You suggested
I didn't want to look at PSR1613+16 but now you want to
change the subject.

George

Just getting a chance to do some checks, this reply
from last week seems to hav been lost by my ISP:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:11:54 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:



I fully agree with PD, and I too applaud George's very patient effort
with Henri. I've had Henri killfiled for some time now, but I've
been following George's posts and the way he guided Henri up to the
point where Henri refused to go futher. Perhaps Henri will reconsider
in the future, I hope so.

Not a chance.

Gawd! Another brainwashed fool.
How does a pulse from an orbiting pulsar know how to travel to little
planet
Earth at the same speed as one emited 180 dgrees before?

You see Paul? Henry knows that SR says the pulse also travels
at c relative to the centre of the galaxy and the Andromeda
galaxy and in every other inertial frame yet he deliberately
pretends he is ignorant of that in order to pretend that it
means Earth is in some way special just so he can be insulting

George, remove the Earth and everything else from the universe.

Your stupid rehashed aether theory says that all the pulses emitted by the
orbiting pulsar will remain in a fixed spatial relationship with EACH
OTHER as
they traverse space. In other words, they are traveling at the same speed
to
wherever they are going.

Yes, that's what the observations say they do.

You are claiming that as each pulse is emitted, its
speed becomes magically adjusted to exactly that of all the previous ones.

Nope, and you know pefectly well that's a load of crap
Henry, you've been told what SR says far too many times
over the years. You are just inventing yet another
deliberate distortion to hide from reality.

I ask, are the fairies involved?...or do you still insist that space has
absolute qualities?

Your assessment of his approach is entirely correct, but since
he knows I'm just helping him speed up his software and get the
predictions to be correct for ballistic theory, I'm not a threat
and he can hold the conversation. Why he got defensive when I
pointed out he could use the Shapiro delay to determine the
phase is a bit of a mystery to me.

George, your method is not good for elliptical orbits or for adding the
brightness contributions of a pair. It requires at least eight more arrays
and
is likely to cause gaps in the output curve.

Well obviously you need to sort out the details. You
described the method you were using and I pointed out
some details you had missed that needed fixing. The
way I would have written the software would have
allowed the method I suggested to work but there's as
many styles of writing as there are programmers so you
have to fix it your way.

It is one helluva thing to program
compared with MY slightly slower but very acccurate method..

Speed isn't the key part, remember you said there was
no phase shift for zero distance where the VDoppler
should dominate so clearly you had a fundamental error.
We need to know the phase so your program was unusable
at that point.

The reason George perseveres with me is that he knows I'm right.

Nah, I just got fed up seeing you claim to have matched various
Cepheid curves when your software obviously contained the same
mistake as Sekerin so gave incorrect results and in fact ballistic
theory can't match them at all.

Oh rubbish George, The curves are accurate to 1 part in c/v.
I can make them dead accurate but why bother...

That accuracy would be fine, but you had a 90 degree phase
error which is not acceptable.

...but he cannot let himself accept the fact that his whole belief
system is
wrong...so he is going down fighting. He wont even comment on this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/psr1913+16.jpg

A perfect match to GR of course, but not much use for your
purposes since there is no brightness curve (there is no
variation) and there is no way to determine true phase.

George, the published 'pulse bunching' curve was used by misguided
astrophysicists to determine the velocity curve USING CLASSICAL DOPPLER
EQUATIONS.

I think they would be using the GR equations Henry.

They don't apply...and the figures, upon which the rest of the
theory is based, are completely wrong.

The theory was written in 1917 Henry, it wasn't based on
Hulse and taylor's figures, and the observations exactly
match that theory. Yous eem to be getting confused with
the Ritzian analysis which would be quite different.

The observed bunching is that produced by a pulsar in CIRCULAR orbit, not
an
elliptical one....as the confused astronomers believe..
...
Henry still has to explain how the periastron of a circular
orbit can advance ;-)

George, I told you how that can appear to happen.

Let me give you a hint Henry, circular orbits don't
have a periastron.

It is all to do with the way
the pulses are created. The neutron star has around it a mass of swirling
gasses, shaped into a thin dick, somewhat like the rings of Saturn... only
lumpy and sufficiently irregular to cause the star to move in a small
orbit. As
the star spins, its magnetic field cuts the disk and initiates a bright
pulse
of mainly H spectrum light from certain parts of he disk. ...

Utter rubbish Henry, the pulse is seen in the radio
frequencies below microwave and is a broad band
signal, the signals couldn't pulse as fast as they
do because the heated gas would cool slowly and the
radiation from the disc would be nearly omni-directonal
other than some shadowing by other parts of the disc
and the star.

The precession of the
disk matter may give the impression of a small movement of periastron...or
the
effect you claim might be nothing more than a beat between the orbit
period and
the pulsar spin rate. There are endless possibilities.

Maybe, but you don't have the faitest idea how to come
up with an alternative that actually explains what we
see.

So George, if you actually would succeed at some point to make Henri
abandon his bath light theory, don't expect him to be grateful
afterwards...

Don't worry, Henry is incapable of that, he has painted
himself into a corner. If he could change his mind, the
Sagnac proof which he agreed would have been adequate.

YOUR 'sagnac analysis' did nothing more than epitomise the stupidity of
trying
to use rotating frames of reference.

Sixth time now Henry, the analysis you agreed was in the
non-rotating frame. Your denial is getting severe, try to
calm down a bit.

My MO is simpler, I take the approach that good science
must be able to prove itself so all I have been doing is
a peer review of his software to get the bugs out and some
digging to see if we can find observational data to match.
Whether Ritzian theory can model that data or not is
something I leave to the whim of the gods, all I expect is
that the model should be accurately based on the theory.
I think Henry (or whoever) is reasonably in touch with what
the theory implies now and his program is probably getting
quite accurate but I don't think he has fully grasped the
use of residuals in determining whether he has a match or
not. One day perhaps ....

Your problem is that you accept the 'data'....when it is completely
wrong.

I accept_observations_ which in science are taken as the
driving force. If your theory doesn't match, you discard
the theory, not the observations.

It is the interpretations of the observations that produce the wrong data.

No Henry data are the observatory records on which the
interpretations are based.

For instance using VDoppler equations to analyse ADoppler bunching of
poulasar
pulses.

Except that ADoppler gives a phase error, that's why the
Shapiro effect is important.

We observe the Shapiro
effect to coincide with a point of negligible Doppler
shift, you want it to be 90 degrees away from where we
see it sonow you have stopped talking about the science
and started getting abusive instead. Maybe that's a sign
that you know subconciously that your claims are
unsupportable but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
and wait to see if you can return to the technical
discussion.

George. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a Shapiro effect
exists because it makes no difference to what my program achieves..

Of course it does Henry, you have to match the phase and
Shapiro tells you that

..the BaTh
matching of just about any star curve...and pulsar 'velocity curve'....

Other than your 90 degree phase error of course.

George

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

Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

Leonard, I think Henry has just swapped some definitions
for convenience. His cos(pitch) is the same as the usual
sin(inclination). I'm less clear about his yaw but I'm
fairly sure it is directly related to the longitude of
the ascending node.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 29 Mar 2007 10:25:26 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 28 Mar, 01:50, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
...
Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We
say their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces
moving in
and out. A brightess curve produced that way is likely to be similar to
that
for a star in elliptical orbit.

What ?????

For years you have been saying that Cepheids were plain
constant-luminosity stars and the variation was due to
c+v effects because they are in binary systems that have
not been recognised as such.

No I changed that opinion some time ago George. I accepted that the
presence of
harmonics in the brightness curves was pretty hard to explain on purely
'orbit'
grounds.
So it is quite likely that two factors are contributing to the brightness
curves of these stars. Their orbit motion and the huff-puffing of their
surfaces.

Given that you now accept the huff-puff nature, you
need to reconsider your justification for saying
that Cepheids that are currently thought of as
isolated might actually be part of a binary.

If you are now switching to say they are single stars, why
on Earth would your software be modelling binary systems
and restricting the solutions to Keplerian orbits when the
motion of the surface is due to internal pressure?

I think it is my turn to say you are getting very confused
Henry.

It is a fact that most 'cepheids' appear to have a companion...

It is a fact that something around half of _all_ stars
are in binary systems so there is no reason why Cepheids
should be an exception.

which means they
are in some kind of orbit.
I reckon the movement of their surfaces would feature similar radial
velocities
to those of an orbit. It is distinctly possible that the huffing is linked
to
the orbit period. It is also possible that the stars are in tidal lock ..

It is certainly possible, especially for close binaries,
but less likely for those with greater separations.

and
distorted into some kind of dumbell shape,

No, each would be more like an egg shape. Look up "Roche Lobe".

leading to a brightness variation as
they orbit....but that wouldn't account for the short periods of many of
them.

It wouldn't account for any where the period of the Cepheid
differs from the orbital period, nor does it account for those
that are not in binary systems.

George

On 26 Mar, 00:56, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:31:31 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:45:26 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
....
We know the pulsar produces pulses regularly every
2.285ms and it doesn't matter whether that is one
or two or 27 per rotation, all that matters is that
we can measure that they are emitted with a regularity
almost as good as an atomic clock.

I was under the imp[ression that the observed pulse was slowly changing too.
Not to worry...

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

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

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

Not quite, you are jumping ahead and making the mistake
you accuse me of. What we know is the _TDoppler_ factor.
Orbital velocity has to be determined from that and
other information using your software.

The VDoppler contribution is negligible...forget it.

Nope, the simple indication from the phase is that
it is completely dominant. If you want to forget it
you have to show an alternative model, such as a
higher eccentricity, that explains the phase. I'm
not saying you can't, only that you cannot just wave
your hands and pretend the phase data doesn't exist.

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

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

We know
the latter is much smaller than our true distance so you
can treat the observer as being at infinity and the
distance is then that of the speed equalisation only
(the curves are asymptotic to those at infinity and
within 0.1% at 7 times the equalisation distance).

I understand you point.

There are two options.

There are at least three.

You are concentrating on one..

No, what I tried to do was walk you through each option
in turn, first low orbital velocity, then high inclination
and finally speed equalisation.

..that which incorporates a large degree of speed
unification. ..and VDoppler is dominant at small distances.
I am now leaning towards a much lower rate of unification and a very small
orbit diameter and speed.

OK, but the phase may be wrong unless you can compensate
in some other way and you will probably get a value for
the stellar masses that is not tenable. I think you'll
need the speed unification but working through the
alternatives is the best way to understand why so carry
on and I'll see if I can ask the awkward questions.

I'll let you absorb what I have said above before I continue this...

Time to continue then.

For J1909-3744 we know from the Shpiro delay (or the
side effect of gravitational lensing if you like) that
we see the orbit close to edge on and that the velocity
curve has a phase that corresponds to purely VDoppler
for a near circular orbit. You tell me what your program
parameters need to be to match that curve.

I don't agree that the effect to which you refer is an indication that
the
orbit is nearly edge on...

In that case you would need to give an alternative
explanation for the pulse delay and explain why that
effect is not seen in other tests.

George, I am questioning the very way pulses are created.

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

Are they delayed or advanced?

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

All we have is a
theory. It might be completely wrong.
How do YOU explain the existence of pulses.

The source emits a beam and spins like a lighthouse, you
know that already.

I don't know that any more. I dont think that explains what is observed.
Do you think the beam is a narrowly focussed 'pencil'... or is it a plane?

See the illustration here

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

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

The shape exactly
matches the known effect seen many ways in the Solar
System as Leonard listed so your rejection of it is
neither credible nor understandable. I could
understand if you objected to the Shapiro effect in
general since it's the wrong way for ballistic theory
but I am not arguing that.

George, GR and the BaTh have the same equations as regards the slowing of
light
or the distortion of space to maintain its speed at c.

No they don't Henry, nothing like it.

George, the BaTh says light speed increases when light falls down a gravitty
wwell just like anyhting else does.

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

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

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

If there IS a Shapiro effect then both theries should agree.

They don't, we worked through ballistic theory some time
ago and you eventually agreed that it predicted an advance
instead of a delay. Don't you remember?

You left out a '-'. The effects should be the same.

Go back and read it, there were no equation, just a simple
(hough slighly ambiguous) diagram which I clarified when
you and Jeff both queried it.


Forget it Henry, we see a white dwarf where one is
expected and you couldn't get anything like the
right spectrum or intensity any other way.

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

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

For an edge-on low velocity model, you will get a mass
for the pulsar which is of the order of millions of
solar masses (caveat: mental arithmetic), at (or a bit
below) the bottom end of the 'super-massive black hole'
category and that can be ruled out by the lack of
gravitational disruption of nearby stars.

You're not thinking rationally any more George.

Back to the abuse Henry? I'm just applying Kepler's
laws and you say your program uses them so it should
agree.

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

Strange how you now agree with me.

..just starting to rave like
the rest...
Try cleansing your mind of just about everything you ever learnt about
astronomy. It is nearly ALL wrong.

ROFL, so far all your program has done is prove it
all correct, the phase means the TDoppler must be
pure VDoppler which means all the standard results stand.

there is NO VDoppler George.

You know better now, my point stands.


No, I'm telling you nothing more than what is obvious
in the measurements. The light curve is flat over
358 degrees of the orbit and goes to zero for 2 degrees.

There could easily be some kind of eclipse.

Yes Henry, it isn't actually the other pulsar that
blocks the view, it's too small. It's the opaque
plasma (like the "solar wind") that eclipses the
primary pulsar but the fact is that you only get
an eclipse when the opaque material is in the line
of sight, and that tells you the phase.

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

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

There could easily be another
explanation...for instance whatever the magnetic field reacts with has a
dip in
it.

But the field rotates hundreds of times a second and the
eclipse last 48 seconds every 2.4 hours (figures estimated
from memory but right order of magnitude).

But what is the form of the magnetic field? How can a magnetic field escape a
neutron star when light cannot?

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

Tough Henry, observations are what they are, you can
produce alternative explanations but you cannot change
reality.

How we interpret wilusions from 4000LYs is wide open to error.
Using constant c is the major source of that error.

An eclipse isn't hard to interpret.

Oh but it is.
The Bath expects many orbiting stars to appear as though they are eclipsing.
All that is required is a moderately eccentric orbit and a periastron approx.
nearest to the observer.

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

George

On 1 Apr 2007 06:46:07 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Just getting a chance to do some checks, this reply
from last week seems to hav been lost by my ISP:


You see Paul? Henry knows that SR says the pulse also travels
at c relative to the centre of the galaxy and the Andromeda
galaxy and in every other inertial frame yet he deliberately
pretends he is ignorant of that in order to pretend that it
means Earth is in some way special just so he can be insulting

George, remove the Earth and everything else from the universe.

Your stupid rehashed aether theory says that all the pulses emitted by the
orbiting pulsar will remain in a fixed spatial relationship with EACH
OTHER as
they traverse space. In other words, they are traveling at the same speed
to
wherever they are going.

Yes, that's what the observations say they do.

What observations george?
Are you sugesting that somebody has actually measured the OW speed of
individual pulsar pulses wrt Earth?

You are claiming that as each pulse is emitted, its
speed becomes magically adjusted to exactly that of all the previous ones.

Nope, and you know pefectly well that's a load of crap
Henry, you've been told what SR says far too many times
over the years. You are just inventing yet another
deliberate distortion to hide from reality.

George, you obviously don't even understand your own stupid theory. IT SAYS
JUST WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. Don't deny it.

I ask, are the fairies involved?...or do you still insist that space has
absolute qualities?

Your assessment of his approach is entirely correct, but since
he knows I'm just helping him speed up his software and get the
predictions to be correct for ballistic theory, I'm not a threat
and he can hold the conversation. Why he got defensive when I
pointed out he could use the Shapiro delay to determine the
phase is a bit of a mystery to me.

George, your method is not good for elliptical orbits or for adding the
brightness contributions of a pair. It requires at least eight more arrays
and
is likely to cause gaps in the output curve.

Well obviously you need to sort out the details. You
described the method you were using and I pointed out
some details you had missed that needed fixing. The
way I would have written the software would have
allowed the method I suggested to work but there's as
many styles of writing as there are programmers so you
have to fix it your way.

My original method is 100% OK fall al prcactica purposes. You suggestion is
very good and much faster but involves some complicated programming and leaves
a lot of gaps in the curve because the x coordinate is rounded off to the
nearest integer....and a number of readings may produce the same integer. Still
it will work for single stars in most instances.

It is one helluva thing to program
compared with MY slightly slower but very acccurate method..

Speed isn't the key part, remember you said there was
no phase shift for zero distance where the VDoppler
should dominate so clearly you had a fundamental error.
We need to know the phase so your program was unusable
at that point.

We don't need to know the phase.

The reason George perseveres with me is that he knows I'm right.

Nah, I just got fed up seeing you claim to have matched various
Cepheid curves when your software obviously contained the same
mistake as Sekerin so gave incorrect results and in fact ballistic
theory can't match them at all.

Oh rubbish George, The curves are accurate to 1 part in c/v.
I can make them dead accurate but why bother...

That accuracy would be fine, but you had a 90 degree phase
error which is not acceptable.

...but he cannot let himself accept the fact that his whole belief
system is
wrong...so he is going down fighting. He wont even comment on this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/psr1913+16.jpg

A perfect match to GR of course, but not much use for your
purposes since there is no brightness curve (there is no
variation) and there is no way to determine true phase.

George, the published 'pulse bunching' curve was used by misguided
astrophysicists to determine the velocity curve USING CLASSICAL DOPPLER
EQUATIONS.

I think they would be using the GR equations Henry.

They are effectively the same at low speeds.

They don't apply...and the figures, upon which the rest of the
theory is based, are completely wrong.

The theory was written in 1917 Henry, it wasn't based on
Hulse and taylor's figures, and the observations exactly
match that theory. Yous eem to be getting confused with
the Ritzian analysis which would be quite different.

SR, LET and BaTh produce almost the same VDoppler shift for speeds c.
You should know that.

The observed bunching is that produced by a pulsar in CIRCULAR orbit, not
an
elliptical one....as the confused astronomers believe..
..
Henry still has to explain how the periastron of a circular
orbit can advance ;-)

George, I told you how that can appear to happen.

Let me give you a hint Henry, circular orbits don't
have a periastron.

Well it is probably not exactly circular. maybe e=0.02-04

It is all to do with the way
the pulses are created. The neutron star has around it a mass of swirling
gasses, shaped into a thin dick, somewhat like the rings of Saturn... only
lumpy and sufficiently irregular to cause the star to move in a small
orbit. As
the star spins, its magnetic field cuts the disk and initiates a bright
pulse
of mainly H spectrum light from certain parts of he disk. ...

Utter rubbish Henry, the pulse is seen in the radio
frequencies below microwave and is a broad band
signal, the signals couldn't pulse as fast as they
do because the heated gas would cool slowly and the
radiation from the disc would be nearly omni-directonal
other than some shadowing by other parts of the disc
and the star.

Well what is YOUR explanation of the pulse origin George?

The precession of the
disk matter may give the impression of a small movement of periastron...or
the
effect you claim might be nothing more than a beat between the orbit
period and
the pulsar spin rate. There are endless possibilities.

Maybe, but you don't have the faitest idea how to come
up with an alternative that actually explains what we
see.

'What we see' is the willusion of what happens.
Explaining WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING is not easy George.

I suggest many possibilities but you never listen.


YOUR 'sagnac analysis' did nothing more than epitomise the stupidity of
trying
to use rotating frames of reference.

Sixth time now Henry, the analysis you agreed was in the
non-rotating frame. Your denial is getting severe, try to
calm down a bit.

The analysis did not take all factors into account.
...and it still showed that a fringe shift should occur.
Anyway, what you claim is just the LET explanation of sagnac.


Your problem is that you accept the 'data'....when it is completely
wrong.

I accept_observations_ which in science are taken as the
driving force. If your theory doesn't match, you discard
the theory, not the observations.

It is the interpretations of the observations that produce the wrong data.

No Henry data are the observatory records on which the
interpretations are based.

So? They measure the bunching of pulses from J1909-3744 and assume it is caused
by conventional VDoppler! Then they arrive at velocities that are grossly
exaggerated.
Surely you can see that by now.

For instance using VDoppler equations to analyse ADoppler bunching of
poulasar
pulses.

Except that ADoppler gives a phase error, that's why the
Shapiro effect is important.

Where is evidence of this phase error?
Where is proof that it is a Shapiro effect?

We observe the Shapiro
effect to coincide with a point of negligible Doppler
shift, you want it to be 90 degrees away from where we
see it sonow you have stopped talking about the science
and started getting abusive instead. Maybe that's a sign
that you know subconciously that your claims are
unsupportable but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
and wait to see if you can return to the technical
discussion.

George. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a Shapiro effect
exists because it makes no difference to what my program achieves..

Of course it does Henry, you have to match the phase and
Shapiro tells you that

So where DOES the supposed Shapiro peak occur?

..the BaTh
matching of just about any star curve...and pulsar 'velocity curve'....

Other than your 90 degree phase error of course.

I don't have that problem any more.


George



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

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:54:22 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

Leonard, I think Henry has just swapped some definitions
for convenience. His cos(pitch) is the same as the usual
sin(inclination). I'm less clear about his yaw but I'm
fairly sure it is directly related to the longitude of
the ascending node.

It is the angle between the LOS and the major axis, in the edge on position.

Any edge on orbit can be rotated about the axis perpendicular to the LOS. At
any particular angle, all RADIAL velocities and accelerations will be
multiplied by the same factor, my cos(pitch).

ALL POSSIBLE ORBIT CONFIGURATIONS (WRT EARTH) CAN BE CREATED IN THIS WAY.

Think about it.

George





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

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 29 Mar 2007 10:25:26 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


For years you have been saying that Cepheids were plain
constant-luminosity stars and the variation was due to
c+v effects because they are in binary systems that have
not been recognised as such.

No I changed that opinion some time ago George. I accepted that the
presence of
harmonics in the brightness curves was pretty hard to explain on purely
'orbit'
grounds.
So it is quite likely that two factors are contributing to the brightness
curves of these stars. Their orbit motion and the huff-puffing of their
surfaces.

Given that you now accept the huff-puff nature, you
need to reconsider your justification for saying
that Cepheids that are currently thought of as
isolated might actually be part of a binary.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

If you are now switching to say they are single stars, why
on Earth would your software be modelling binary systems
and restricting the solutions to Keplerian orbits when the
motion of the surface is due to internal pressure?

I think it is my turn to say you are getting very confused
Henry.

It is a fact that most 'cepheids' appear to have a companion...

It is a fact that something around half of _all_ stars
are in binary systems so there is no reason why Cepheids
should be an exception.

....all stars are obiting some kind of mass centre.

which means they
are in some kind of orbit.
I reckon the movement of their surfaces would feature similar radial
velocities
to those of an orbit. It is distinctly possible that the huffing is linked
to
the orbit period. It is also possible that the stars are in tidal lock ..

It is certainly possible, especially for close binaries,
but less likely for those with greater separations.

and
distorted into some kind of dumbell shape,

No, each would be more like an egg shape. Look up "Roche Lobe".

Yes, egg shaped...that would cause a brightness variation at double the orbit
frequency.

leading to a brightness variation as
they orbit....but that wouldn't account for the short periods of many of
them.

It wouldn't account for any where the period of the Cepheid
differs from the orbital period, nor does it account for those
that are not in binary systems.

That is true. That's why I accept the possibility.
However it doesn't make any difference to the fact that the brightness
variation of huff-puff stars conforms with BaTh.

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

George



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

On 1 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 26 Mar, 00:56, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:31:31 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:45:26 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
...
We know the pulsar produces pulses regularly every
2.285ms and it doesn't matter whether that is one
or two or 27 per rotation, all that matters is that
we can measure that they are emitted with a regularity
almost as good as an atomic clock.

I was under the imp[ression that the observed pulse was slowly changing too.
Not to worry...

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

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

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

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

The VDoppler contribution is negligible...forget it.

Nope, the simple indication from the phase is that
it is completely dominant. If you want to forget it
you have to show an alternative model, such as a
higher eccentricity, that explains the phase. I'm
not saying you can't, only that you cannot just wave
your hands and pretend the phase data doesn't exist.

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

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

The 'correction' is negligible.

We know
the latter is much smaller than our true distance so you
can treat the observer as being at infinity and the
distance is then that of the speed equalisation only
(the curves are asymptotic to those at infinity and
within 0.1% at 7 times the equalisation distance).

I understand you point.

There are two options.

There are at least three.

You are concentrating on one..

No, what I tried to do was walk you through each option
in turn, first low orbital velocity, then high inclination
and finally speed equalisation.

..that which incorporates a large degree of speed
unification. ..and VDoppler is dominant at small distances.
I am now leaning towards a much lower rate of unification and a very small
orbit diameter and speed.

OK, but the phase may be wrong unless you can compensate
in some other way and you will probably get a value for
the stellar masses that is not tenable. I think you'll
need the speed unification but working through the
alternatives is the best way to understand why so carry
on and I'll see if I can ask the awkward questions.

I'll let you absorb what I have said above before I continue this...

Time to continue then.

For J1909-3744 we know from the Shpiro delay (or the
side effect of gravitational lensing if you like) that
we see the orbit close to edge on and that the velocity
curve has a phase that corresponds to purely VDoppler
for a near circular orbit. You tell me what your program
parameters need to be to match that curve.

I don't agree that the effect to which you refer is an indication that
the
orbit is nearly edge on...

In that case you would need to give an alternative
explanation for the pulse delay and explain why that
effect is not seen in other tests.

George, I am questioning the very way pulses are created.

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

Are they delayed or advanced?

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

No. The BaTh should be in agreement with GR.

All we have is a
theory. It might be completely wrong.
How do YOU explain the existence of pulses.

The source emits a beam and spins like a lighthouse, you
know that already.

I don't know that any more. I dont think that explains what is observed.
Do you think the beam is a narrowly focussed 'pencil'... or is it a plane?

See the illustration here

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

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

It's a pretty crappy article.

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

Why aren't two pulses emitted per rotation?

and:

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

In other words, they don't know.


George, GR and the BaTh have the same equations as regards the slowing of
light
or the distortion of space to maintain its speed at c.

No they don't Henry, nothing like it.

George, the BaTh says light speed increases when light falls down a gravitty
wwell just like anyhting else does.

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

GR says the same.

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

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

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

The pulsar is barely moving.

If there IS a Shapiro effect then both theries should agree.

They don't, we worked through ballistic theory some time
ago and you eventually agreed that it predicted an advance
instead of a delay. Don't you remember?

You left out a '-'. The effects should be the same.

Go back and read it, there were no equation, just a simple
(hough slighly ambiguous) diagram which I clarified when
you and Jeff both queried it.


Forget it Henry, we see a white dwarf where one is
expected and you couldn't get anything like the
right spectrum or intensity any other way.

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

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

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



Back to the abuse Henry? I'm just applying Kepler's
laws and you say your program uses them so it should
agree.

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

Strange how you now agree with me.

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

..just starting to rave like
the rest...
Try cleansing your mind of just about everything you ever learnt about
astronomy. It is nearly ALL wrong.

ROFL, so far all your program has done is prove it
all correct, the phase means the TDoppler must be
pure VDoppler which means all the standard results stand.

there is NO VDoppler George.

You know better now, my point stands.

it is a negligible effect .....and not related to extinction.

No, I'm telling you nothing more than what is obvious
in the measurements. The light curve is flat over
358 degrees of the orbit and goes to zero for 2 degrees.

There could easily be some kind of eclipse.

Yes Henry, it isn't actually the other pulsar that
blocks the view, it's too small. It's the opaque
plasma (like the "solar wind") that eclipses the
primary pulsar but the fact is that you only get
an eclipse when the opaque material is in the line
of sight, and that tells you the phase.

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

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

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


But the field rotates hundreds of times a second and the
eclipse last 48 seconds every 2.4 hours (figures estimated
from memory but right order of magnitude).

But what is the form of the magnetic field? How can a magnetic field escape a
neutron star when light cannot?

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

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


An eclipse isn't hard to interpret.

Oh but it is.
The Bath expects many orbiting stars to appear as though they are eclipsing.
All that is required is a moderately eccentric orbit and a periastron approx.
nearest to the observer.

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

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

George


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