Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 3 Apr, 01:25, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:51:01 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
George if you can tell me how much matter is falling into the star and what is
its relative angular momentum, I might be able to provide some kind of answer.
You would also have to assume something about magnetic damping and tidal
effects due to gaseous atmosphere around it. ..and what is the curvature of its
transverse motion?

How anyone can seriously claim that it is exactly in line with GR predictions
is really funny.

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

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

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

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


What is observed is a delay when the Sun is close to
the line of sight to spaecraft and when radar signals
are bounced off Venus and so on. There is no question
about the observation within the Solar system and both
GR and ballistic theory say the effect should be largest
when the light passes closest to the body (obviously).
The main difference is the sense of the effect.

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

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

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

Your conclusion was:

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

that's right.



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

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

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

I don't even accept that this is the real source of pulses.

I don't really care what you accept, all that matters
is that pulses are produced and we can use them as a
testbed.

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

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

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

In reality, it is probably more like the earlier static picture
where the angle between the rotational and magnetic axes is
smaller. The second beam is always pointing away from us.

Maybe..but I would have thought the field is more like a broad plane than a
beam.

They seem to produce a cone shaped beam or pencil
beams, sometimes both. The whole thing is very
complex. See section 4 and Figure 2 of

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149

Note the signal is low in the centre and highest along
the 'hourglass' shaped contour.

Yes.

Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

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

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

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

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

Not really.

No, it predicts a delay.

Then it has the star's position 180 out...that's all.

We see a delay that peaks like this:

_/\_____

An advance shifted by 180 degrees would look like this:
_____ _
\/

Not even close.

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

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

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


What I mean is that you haven't worked through the whole
problem to find a single set of numbers that fits all the
observational data. It's not a criticism Henry, we just
haven't reached that stage yet.

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

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

..explain the phasing in diagram1 and I will try.

As I understand it, the phase is like this:

A

B + D Earth

C

A = 0.00 & 1.00
B = 0.25
C = 0.50
D = 0.75

I don't like their method anyway.

The terms are fairly standard and you should be able
to convert to other angles easily. These should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitu...ascending_node

you see I don't use this convention.

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

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



And statistically we expect to see some. There is no
reason to think this isn't one and the Shapiro delay
matches.

Where is evidence of the eclipse?

The fact that the flux dips to near zero coincident
with the Shapiro delay maximum, point B on the above
diagram.

Is this still with reference to the dual pulsar system?

Yes.

If so there should be two Shapiro effects per cycle.

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

These are all areas of on-going research but it is
a fact that we see X-ray and gamma emissions and I
believe the spctra can give some indication of the
surface composition. Anyway, there is no reason why
we shouldn't see the surface, the free-fall speed
would be about half the speed of light so there
would be _significant_ gravitational redshift.

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

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

Hmmm..

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

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

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

Yes...but I hadn't forgotten. I'm trying to find velocity curves for so called
eclipsing binaries because they should reveal a great deal about this whole
approach.
I'm still not convinced that the 'compressible pulse width' method we're using
for pulsars applies to light from stars.

I am discussing J0737-3039 which is a double pulsar system
with an eclipse. The velocity curve should be easy to find
or perhaps figure out from the orbital elements (as before
work back using conventional theory to find the observations
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

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

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


George


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

On 4 Apr, 09:51, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:30:36 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 3 Apr, 01:25, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:51:01 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
George if you can tell me how much matter is falling into the star and what is
its relative angular momentum, I might be able to provide some kind of answer.
You would also have to assume something about magnetic damping and tidal
effects due to gaseous atmosphere around it. ..and what is the curvature of its
transverse motion?

How anyone can seriously claim that it is exactly in line with GR predictions
is really funny.

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

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your conclusion was:

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

that's right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

....
I don't even accept that this is the real source of pulses.

I don't really care what you accept, all that matters
is that pulses are produced and we can use them as a
testbed.

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

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

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

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


Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

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

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

theories, theories.....

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

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

There are nuts out there who will argue almost anything.

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

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

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

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

The terms are fairly standard and you should be able
to convert to other angles easily. These should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitu...ascending_node

you see I don't use this convention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am discussing J0737-3039 which is a double pulsar system
with an eclipse. The velocity curve should be easy to find
or perhaps figure out from the orbital elements (as before
work back using conventional theory to find the observations
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

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

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

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

George

On 3 Apr, 00:38, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:25:42 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman"
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.

The theory is that its orbit is highly elliptical and precessing at a
known rate.

Try to take more care with your terms henry, the theory
is GR. That the orbit is elliptical and precessing is
the best model fit.

If the faith is strong enough George, you will find evidence of it everywhere.

You are a prime example, but that is beside the point,
you should still know what the words "theory" and "model"
mean and be able to use them correctly.

I say this pulsar has a nearly circular orbit and maybe its transverse
velocity could explain that willusion.

Baseless handwaving.

I also point out that I don't accept any published astronomical data that
is
based on grossly wrong values of orbital velocities.

Of course not. Produce your best fit of your model to
the observations and then we will see whether you
agree the rate of orbital change or not. So far you
have no evidence to suggest the conventional values
are wrong.

Stop preaching George ...

I'm not preaching Henry, I'm challenging you to back
up your claims of a "match" which I think are quite
ficticious. Where are your orbital parameters and
extinction distance for J1909-3744 and the others?

George

On 3 Apr, 00:36, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:22:12 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Apr 2007 06:46:07 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:
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?

I am pointing out that no observations contradict that
view while if ballistic theory was correct you would
expect many violations, such as multiple images from
binaries.

That idea went out the window long ago.

No, it is still true. You have to bodge in an ad hoc speed
equalisation to cover it up because the observation contradicts
Ritz's theory.

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.

Sorry Henry, shouting doesn't make errors any less wrong.
I know you are aware of this, I have corrected you on it
dozens of times over what must be nearly a decade now.

George, SR says that light emitted from differently moving source at the same
point will travel through space at the same speed .

There you are you see, you DO know the correct postulate.

Are you now denying the very existence of Einstein's second postulate?


....

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.

Yes we do, that is the key as I have been telling you
for several weeks, it allows you to distinguish VDoppler
from ADoppler which is hard to do any other way unless
you are lucky enough to have an eclipsing situation.

I have already done that.
I gave you the figures.
...but they are just a geometric phenomenon.

True but very useful nonetheless.

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

So what, the curve that is matched is the change of the
orbit resulting from the energy loss through gravitational
radiation.

I'm reasonably happy with the idea of energy loss due to a number of
factors....although I'm sure matter falling into the pulsar would also slow it
down.

In PSR1613 there isn't much matter transfer AFAIK though
in other systems it is very important. The effect on the
orbit is probably slight but the effect on the spin is to
increase it significantly. That's how millisecond pulsars
are created.

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

Fine, you were the one claiming it was circular.

I have to compare its curve with a sine wave and look at residuals. .

The curve matches a Keplerian ellipse withe the conventional
analysis. I would expect it to match a different ellipse with
ballistic theory though perhaps not too different depending
on your extinction distance.

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?

I'm not clear on the details but I understand it to be
basically cyclotron radiation in particles pulled from
the stellar surface by electrostatic fields. The magnetic
field creates the beam by aligning the spiralling of the
charges:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303204842.htm

there are many theories George. Nobody really has much of a clue.

Not too many Henry, the differences tend to be in the
details rather than the general mechanism, though obviously
different mechanisms apply to different bands, RF and gamma
needn't come from the same source.

Maybe, but you don't have the faintest 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.

It is quite easy Henry, the system emits gravitational
radiation exactly as Einstein's maths predicts.

Oh crap!
As the pope said to allah, ...

Do you think your tirades have any effect other than to
make you look more like a crank? It is a hard mathematical
fact that the curve exactly matches the equations and there
isn't the slightest reason to doubt that they tell us
exactly what is really happening.

.. "if the faith is strong enough, you can find
evidence for it everywhere you look".

Yep, it is only your religious fervour for ballistic
theory that forces you to ignore all the real evidence.

Don't you think there might be some degree of magnetic damping?

That is one factor slowing the spin rate which is
around 10^-20 s/s for typical millisecond pulsars
but the orbital frequency is vastly lower so the
effect would be correspondingly smaller too.

I suggest many possibilities but you never listen.

I listen but so far they have all been laughable.

They're no funnier than your claim that Einstein's second postulate doesn't
really operate ..

More delusions Henry.

even though you have staked your whole reputation on the theory
that follows it.

ROFL, I have staked _nothing_ Henry, all theories are only
ever the best currently available equations and the aim of
science is to replace them. Yopu really don't seem to
understand what it is all about.

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.

It was in the non-rotating frame Henry, have you got
that now?

It took into account all the factors in your diagram.

Photon axis,

Quantised, not a vector - cannot delay modulation.

centrifugal force,

Stupid idea, it doesn't exist or it would show up all
over the place and it would have to reduce the speed
to near zero to explain the experiment.

sideways displacement

Stupid suggestion because it doesn't change the phase
or delay the signal in any way.

....etc, etc....

Yep, as I said all laughable.

..and it still showed that a fringe shift should occur.

No, it showed there would be _no_ shift. That's why you
had to go looking for alternatives.

I'm not discussing it futrther here.

Indeed, it isn't relevant to the pulsar topic.

They measure the bunching of pulses from J1909-3744 and assume it is
caused
by conventional VDoppler!

Which your model will confirm when you do the analysis
thoroughly.

The analysis IS thorough and it demonstrates my point perfectly.

Nope, you haven't got a match to the orbital phase at
the same time as the red velocity curve yet, or maybe
you haven't told me what parameters do that.

All doppler calculated velocities are likely to be very wrong.

If you had done the analysis, you could tell me the
exact error.

Then they arrive at velocities that are grossly
exaggerated.
Surely you can see that by now.

I'm waiting for you to work out what parameters will
match the observations. I have given you hints about
what the answers will turn out to be but you need to
do it yourself, I know you won't believe what I tell
you without confirming it for yourself.

I've already done it for J1909-3744.
For a distance of 3Lys, the (orbital velocity x cos(pitch)) = about 30 m/s.
(for a bunching factor, 1 in 10^4)

This implies that the pulsar is in a quite small orbit that is somewhat face
on.

Then you haven't got a match because that requires a
stellar mass that is three order of magnitude too
high. I don't believe ytou have matched the effect
that looks like a Shapiro delay either but you need
to show the relevant curves for that.


So where DOES the supposed Shapiro peak occur?

It happens when the LoS passes close to the companion as
shown in the diagram:

http://www.physorg.com/news9837.html

That's 180 out.

No, that diagram matches what we se in the Solar system.

In the observations, it is at a phase of 0.25 (90 degrees)
which is when the Doppler is zero and rising as the source
is at its greatest distance from us. See figure 1 of:

Where does it say doppler is zero at that point?

Where is says the eccentricity is 10^-7. That
gives close enough to a circular orbit.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507420

Theories, theories, ...

No Henry, when are you going to learn what that word means.

George...all based on the wrong velocity figures.

You may be thinking of an older problem of brightness phase
relative to velocity which I suspect has been cleared up.
Here I mean the observed phase is not compatible with the
Doppler being mostly ADoppler, it needs to be predominantly
VDoppler.

I don't know what the starting phase is in the above figure. I don't understand
their phasing at all.

Something is 90 out wrt something else yet longitude of periastron (deg) =
155.7452858095 ± 7. What are these two 'somethings'?

That in itself isn't a problem, it simply gives an upper
limit to the speed equalisation distance.

OK, I understand what you are saying but I can't relate it to this figure.

Hopefully you now know how the terms relate to yours from
our other discussion.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:34:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

I'm sure there are many that have very slow orbit periods.

A thought just ocurred, are you perhaps seeing a bias
by looking mainly at milliseond pulsars? These are fast
because they get "spun up" by matter falling in from a
companion.

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.

They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

They orbit all kinds of objects, not just the galaxy...and other objects
orbit
them.
Many orbits will involve more than one other object and will be unstable.

The question remains, so what? other than in fairly tight
binaries and near misses of unbound objects, the speed and
acceleration will be too low to produce any significant
brightening.

....
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.

First you need to model them correctly. Your new program
should do that if you match the red velocity curve to the
published data. The grreen curve then gives the luminosity
variation due to c+v and any extra is intrinsic. So Henry,
revisit your matches and tell me how much is c+v and how
much is intrinsic for some examples 1.5 magnitude variation

It isn't difficult to produce variations of 1.5 mag. ..but 3 is about the
limit
with the BaTh before the critical distance is reached and the curves
become
peaked.

Try it now that your program shows the red and blue curves
separately. Take a Cepheid you think you can model with a
varation of 1.5 mag or more, match the red curve to the
velocity profile and tell me how much variation the green
curve predicts. The remainder is intrinsic.

There still appears to be no theory that explains any intrinsic brightness
variation of huff-puff stars.

This is a slightly better introduction than the bulk:

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~mhvk/AST221/pulsators.pdf

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

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

The theories involved would include thermodynamics, radiation
pressure, fluid dynamics and the bit that a lot of simpler
pages leave out is the importance of opacity. The stellar
structure forms a relaxation oscillator.

George

On 4 Apr 2007 08:36:02 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 3 Apr, 00:36, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:22:12 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

I am pointing out that no observations contradict that
view while if ballistic theory was correct you would
expect many violations, such as multiple images from
binaries.

That idea went out the window long ago.

No, it is still true. You have to bodge in an ad hoc speed
equalisation to cover it up because the observation contradicts
Ritz's theory.

Observations based on grossly wrong velocity values.


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

Sorry Henry, shouting doesn't make errors any less wrong.
I know you are aware of this, I have corrected you on it
dozens of times over what must be nearly a decade now.

George, SR says that light emitted from differently moving source at the same
point will travel through space at the same speed .

There you are you see, you DO know the correct postulate.

George, you know the words but you obviously haven't translated them into a
physical model.
Einstein's second postulate clearly implies that light from differently moving
sources travels through space at the same speed.
Do you deny that?
Is it not plain aether theory?

Are you now denying the very existence of Einstein's second postulate?

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.

Yes we do, that is the key as I have been telling you
for several weeks, it allows you to distinguish VDoppler
from ADoppler which is hard to do any other way unless
you are lucky enough to have an eclipsing situation.

I have already done that.
I gave you the figures.
...but they are just a geometric phenomenon.

True but very useful nonetheless.

How do you know the claimed Shapiro effect is not something to do with the
brightness variation of the dwarf?

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

So what, the curve that is matched is the change of the
orbit resulting from the energy loss through gravitational
radiation.

I'm reasonably happy with the idea of energy loss due to a number of
factors....although I'm sure matter falling into the pulsar would also slow it
down.

In PSR1613 there isn't much matter transfer AFAIK though
in other systems it is very important. The effect on the
orbit is probably slight but the effect on the spin is to
increase it significantly. That's how millisecond pulsars
are created.

They are created in a region of space that happens to have a net angular
momentum in a particular sense. As you know, they usually move quite rapidly
away from their points of origin. That obviously means that they could
regularly find themselves in regions of space in which the angular momentum was
in the opposite direction. ..hence falling matter would slow them down.

I realise relativists only want to be aware of things that are likely to
support their views but really George, your last claim was a little too
ridiculous.

Fine, you were the one claiming it was circular.

I have to compare its curve with a sine wave and look at residuals. .

The curve matches a Keplerian ellipse withe the conventional
analysis. I would expect it to match a different ellipse with
ballistic theory though perhaps not too different depending
on your extinction distance.

It certainly depends on the distance. At large distances the differences are
obvious but at small ones, a true comparison is required.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303204842.htm

there are many theories George. Nobody really has much of a clue.

Not too many Henry, the differences tend to be in the
details rather than the general mechanism, though obviously
different mechanisms apply to different bands, RF and gamma
needn't come from the same source.

Maybe, but you don't have the faintest 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.

It is quite easy Henry, the system emits gravitational
radiation exactly as Einstein's maths predicts.

Oh crap!
As the pope said to allah, ...

Do you think your tirades have any effect other than to
make you look more like a crank? It is a hard mathematical
fact that the curve exactly matches the equations and there
isn't the slightest reason to doubt that they tell us
exactly what is really happening.

.. "if the faith is strong enough, you can find
evidence for it everywhere you look".

Yep, it is only your religious fervour for ballistic
theory that forces you to ignore all the real evidence.

The plain evidence is that light from differently moving sources COULD NOT and
does NOT travel across space at the same speed....as Einstein's second
postulate claims.

Don't you think there might be some degree of magnetic damping?

That is one factor slowing the spin rate which is
around 10^-20 s/s for typical millisecond pulsars
but the orbital frequency is vastly lower so the
effect would be correspondingly smaller too.

I suppose that figure was produced by subtracting the GR prediction form te
observed one.
Very funny George.

I suggest many possibilities but you never listen.

I listen but so far they have all been laughable.

They're no funnier than your claim that Einstein's second postulate doesn't
really operate ..

More delusions Henry.

You said it....

even though you have staked your whole reputation on the theory
that follows it.

ROFL, I have staked _nothing_ Henry, all theories are only
ever the best currently available equations and the aim of
science is to replace them. Yopu really don't seem to
understand what it is all about.

Everything you have said here gives the impession that you are a firm supporter
of LET.


It was in the non-rotating frame Henry, have you got
that now?

It took into account all the factors in your diagram.

Photon axis,

Quantised, not a vector - cannot delay modulation.

centrifugal force,

Stupid idea, it doesn't exist or it would show up all
over the place and it would have to reduce the speed
to near zero to explain the experiment.

sideways displacement

Stupid suggestion because it doesn't change the phase
or delay the signal in any way.

....etc, etc....

Yep, as I said all laughable.

....and we never quite worked out what happens at each reflection. We could
argue about THAT forever.

..and it still showed that a fringe shift should occur.

No, it showed there would be _no_ shift. That's why you
had to go looking for alternatives.

I'm not discussing it futrther here.

Indeed, it isn't relevant to the pulsar topic.

correct.

They measure the bunching of pulses from J1909-3744 and assume it is
caused
by conventional VDoppler!

Which your model will confirm when you do the analysis
thoroughly.

The analysis IS thorough and it demonstrates my point perfectly.

Nope, you haven't got a match to the orbital phase at
the same time as the red velocity curve yet, or maybe
you haven't told me what parameters do that.

I still can't understand their claims about phasing.
I might rewrite my yaw angle definition so that its sense and zero point
coincide with the official one. That's pretty easy.

All doppler calculated velocities are likely to be very wrong.

If you had done the analysis, you could tell me the
exact error.

Then they arrive at velocities that are grossly
exaggerated.
Surely you can see that by now.

I'm waiting for you to work out what parameters will
match the observations. I have given you hints about
what the answers will turn out to be but you need to
do it yourself, I know you won't believe what I tell
you without confirming it for yourself.

I've already done it for J1909-3744.
For a distance of 3Lys, the (orbital velocity x cos(pitch)) = about 30 m/s.
(for a bunching factor, 1 in 10^4)

This implies that the pulsar is in a quite small orbit that is somewhat face
on.

Then you haven't got a match because that requires a
stellar mass that is three order of magnitude too
high. I don't believe ytou have matched the effect
that looks like a Shapiro delay either but you need
to show the relevant curves for that.

I might get around to it some time.


So where DOES the supposed Shapiro peak occur?

It happens when the LoS passes close to the companion as
shown in the diagram:

http://www.physorg.com/news9837.html

That's 180 out.

No, that diagram matches what we se in the Solar system.

In the observations, it is at a phase of 0.25 (90 degrees)
which is when the Doppler is zero and rising as the source
is at its greatest distance from us. See figure 1 of:

Where does it say doppler is zero at that point?

Where is says the eccentricity is 10^-7. That
gives close enough to a circular orbit.

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507420

Theories, theories, ...

No Henry, when are you going to learn what that word means.

George...all based on the wrong velocity figures.

You may be thinking of an older problem of brightness phase
relative to velocity which I suspect has been cleared up.
Here I mean the observed phase is not compatible with the
Doppler being mostly ADoppler, it needs to be predominantly
VDoppler.

I don't know what the starting phase is in the above figure. I don't understand
their phasing at all.

Something is 90 out wrt something else yet longitude of periastron (deg) =
155.7452858095 ± 7. What are these two 'somethings'?

That in itself isn't a problem, it simply gives an upper
limit to the speed equalisation distance.

OK, I understand what you are saying but I can't relate it to this figure.

Hopefully you now know how the terms relate to yours from
our other discussion.

George


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

On 4 Apr 2007 06:03:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 3 Apr, 00:38, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:25:42 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

Try to take more care with your terms henry, the theory
is GR. That the orbit is elliptical and precessing is
the best model fit.

If the faith is strong enough George, you will find evidence of it everywhere.

You are a prime example, but that is beside the point,
you should still know what the words "theory" and "model"
mean and be able to use them correctly.

George, just show me evidence that light from differently moving sources really
does travel at the same speed through space.



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

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 09:40:25 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 00:28:34 +0100, "OG" wrote:

On the contrary - you need to explain yourself

So 3 questions
What is BaTh ?
What is extinction and how precisely does it prevent fast light from
catching up slow light?
What is your explanation for the variable light curve of cepheids

I'm away from fast internet for the next few days so you can take your
time
over these answers.

Why should I bother to answer at all?

No reason - if you don't want to support your claims, I can't force you to.
You are in the position of wanting to promote your hypothesis, if you don't
want to support it . . .

It is in constant process of being supported.

If you want to enlarge on Einstei's second postulate then please do.

Tell me how and why light from differently moving sources should travel at the
same speed through space.

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

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:23:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:34:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

I'm sure there are many that have very slow orbit periods.

A thought just ocurred, are you perhaps seeing a bias
by looking mainly at milliseond pulsars? These are fast
because they get "spun up" by matter falling in from a
companion.

They are fast because the stuff that made them had some net angular momentum.



They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

They orbit all kinds of objects, not just the galaxy...and other objects
orbit
them.
Many orbits will involve more than one other object and will be unstable.

The question remains, so what? other than in fairly tight
binaries and near misses of unbound objects, the speed and
acceleration will be too low to produce any significant
brightening.

That depends entirely on distance. ...although extinction plays a part. Time
compression can occur at large distances.
I'm now of the opinion that not much unification occurs in intergalactic space
(below the WDT). Most occurs within the confines of a galaxy....particularly
near the source.....but this could vary enormously from one situation to
another.


It isn't difficult to produce variations of 1.5 mag. ..but 3 is about the
limit
with the BaTh before the critical distance is reached and the curves
become
peaked.

Try it now that your program shows the red and blue curves
separately. Take a Cepheid you think you can model with a
varation of 1.5 mag or more, match the red curve to the
velocity profile and tell me how much variation the green
curve predicts. The remainder is intrinsic.

As a result of my dropping the 'incompressible photon' theory the red curve has
now been replaced by the green one.

There still appears to be no theory that explains any intrinsic brightness
variation of huff-puff stars.

This is a slightly better introduction than the bulk:

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~mhvk/AST221/pulsators.pdf

George, have a look at their velocity and brigtness curves, about half way
down.
Do you notice something?

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

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

The theories involved would include thermodynamics, radiation
pressure, fluid dynamics and the bit that a lot of simpler
pages leave out is the importance of opacity. The stellar
structure forms a relaxation oscillator.

That's the theory.
Nobody will ever get close enough to have a good look at one though.

George



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

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

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


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

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

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

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

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

No, it's because relativists are becoming desperate.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

theories, theories.....

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

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

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

There are nuts out there who will argue almost anything.

That's funny coming from you George.

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

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

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

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

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

The terms are fairly standard and you should be able
to convert to other angles easily. These should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitu...ascending_node

you see I don't use this convention.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am discussing J0737-3039 which is a double pulsar system
with an eclipse. The velocity curve should be easy to find
or perhaps figure out from the orbital elements (as before
work back using conventional theory to find the observations
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. These can be interesting.

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

This is really terrific evidence in favour of the BaTh.

George


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