Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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


OK, support it.
What is BaTh and what is extinction and how does it occur?

Henri Wilson replied to George Dishmn:

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.

It is not 180 degrees out. The diagram is so simple and
clear that it is surprising that anyone could misinterpret
it-- quadruply so for anyone who has been studying the
subject of binary stars for long.


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:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507420
....
I don't know what the starting phase is in the above figure.
I don't understand their phasing at all.

I didn't know what the starting point was, either. After
reading your lament I looked at the figure for five seconds
and saw that the answer was obvious: The horizontal scale,
labeled 'Orbital Phase' runs from zero to one. The peak of
the delay, when the pulsar is on the far side of the orbit,
is exactly at 0.25. Obviously zero phase is when the pulsar
is moving directly away from us, as determined by the peak
of the delay a quarter orbit later.

Then I looked back at your post and saw that George had
already told you as much in the first line of the paragraph
directing you to look at the figure, quoted above.

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

I think there is a certain amount of circularity in the
logic behind the shapiro delay business.

A delay is observed and measured every time spacecraft
send radio signals to Earth from the far side of the Sun.
Pioneer Venus, Magellan, Galileo, Cassini, the Mars Viking
orbiters and landers, Pathfinder, Spirit, Opportunity, Mars
Global Surveyor, Mars Express, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter,
Mars Odyssey 2001, MESSENGER, and other planetary probes
have provided the signals to do this many times.

A delay is also observed in pulsar pulses every time the
line of sight to a pulsar passes close to the Sun. With
over 1700 pulsars currently known all over the sky, there
are many opportunities to observe pulsars near the Sun.

Observed delays in signals from spacecraft and pulsars as
they pass the Sun exactly match the Shapiro delay times
predicted by general relativity. The magnitude of the
delay varies smoothly as a function of distance from the
Sun, and matches every spacecraft and pulsar signal at
every distance from the Sun, from grazing incidence to
180 degrees away. In other words, the observed delay
curves match the predicted Shapiro delay curves with no
detectable deviation from an *exact* fit.

The observed delay in signals coming from PSR J1909-3744
exactly matches the delays in signals from spacecraft and
pulsars, and also exactly matches the delay predicted by
general relativity, if the PSR J1909-3744 signals are
passing a white dwarf with a mass of 0.204 solar mass,
in an orbit inclined 3.4 degrees from edge-on to us.

The observed delay curve for PSR J1909-3744 matches the
predicted Shapiro delay curve with no detectable deviation
from an *exact* fit.

The mass for the companion star found from the observed
Shapiro delay is also exactly the mass required to match
the observed luminosity and spectrum of the white dwarf.

It is also exactly the mass required to match the observed
orbit period according to Kepler's and Newton's laws.

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

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).

My apologies. I was wrong when I said '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 always true of circles,
but usually not true of ellipses. Actual ellipses generally
do not end up with the long axis of the projected ellipse
being horizontal following such a rotation.

The rotation still appears to be irrelevant, though.

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?

Yes...but the rotation is about an axis in the edge-on
position....that axis lying perpendicular to the LOS and in
the plane of the orbit.

If I may clarify your clarification: You are now talking
about a second rotation. The first, as you said, can be
accomplished by rotating one's head. It has the effect of
making the axis for the second rotation horizontal WRT the
viewer. The second rotation is the pitch of the orbit.

However, neither rotation is ever actually necessary or
carried out in your analysis. The first is never done.
The second, AFAICS, is not actually a rotation, but the
value that you use for the pitch of the orbit.

It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO FIND SUCH AN AXIS, no matter what
the orbit configuration wrt Earth.

Perhaps I misunderstood your reason for describing the
first rotation. It has no effect on the maths used, but
it *does* show which axis you are referring to. Is that
the reason for bringing it up? Simply to explain which
axis you mean? You can do that just by saying 'A line in
the plane of the orbit perpendicular to the line of sight'.
This omits the bit about rotation to horizontal position,
because you never execute such a rotation. You could say
that the line passes through the center of the ellipse,
but that isn't really needed either since any line in the
plane of the orbit and perpendicular to the line of sight
will serve. Using a centerline just looks nicer.

That is a very minor objection. I raise it only because
you described the rotation to horizontal as though it were
part of your analysis process, but it isn't.

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:

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

I have tried to explain before that I have redefined pitch
and yaw to make the programming of this stuff possible. My
method is 100% correct and effective. For the purpose of
brightness variation and measurement, one angle can be
eliminated by simply 'rotating the horizontal', ie.,
one's head.

The thing is, you are not starting with the ellipse at an
angle, so there is no angle to eliminate. If you started
with measurements of the actual orientation of the projected
ellipse in the sky, then it would be convenient to rotate
it so that a particular axis is horizontal WRT the observer.
But you are not starting with measurements of the actual
orientation of the projected ellipse, so there is nothing
to rotate. Instead, you are constructing an ellipse from
scratch, and not specifying orientation. (No reason to.)

Every orbit, eliptical or circular can be described in this
way. ...an edge on orbit multiplied by cos(pitch)...or
'inclination' as you call it.

Rotating one's head to change the orientation of an apparent
ellipse is trivial, and has no effect on the maths used.

If the actual shape is a circle, then the axis found is
the major axis of the projected ellipse. In that case,
of course, there is no need for a third rotation in yaw.

If the actual shape is an ellipse, then the axis found will
usually be at an angle to the major axis. In that case, it
appears that your resulting pitch angle will generally be
somewhat larger than the conventional inclination. I have
not anayzed this fully and am not certain of the result.

The conventional inclination is the angle between the line
of sight and the plane of the orbit, while your 'pitch' is
the angle that the orbit would need to rotate around a line
in the plane of the orbit and perpendicular to the line of
sight in order to become edge-on. I'm not certain, but it
appears that that angle would usually be larger than the
conventional inclination.

The only difference this makes that is obvious to me is the
one you are already aware of: It changes the value for yaw.
I have not attempted to analyze that at all.

To verify what I am saying, I suggest you make a paper
cutout of an ellipse, stick it at some odd angle onto the
end of a rod and hold it up in front of you. If you rotate
the rod (representing the LOS) you will see that at one
particular angle there will be an axis in the orbit plane
that lies perpendicular to the LOS and parallel to the line
between your eyes (the new horizontal).

In that position, the orbit can be rotated around THAT AXIS
through an angle (my 'pitch') into an edge on position. I
define YAW as the angle between the major axis of the ellipse
and the LOS when the orbit is in that edge on position. My
'zero yaw angle' is also defined differently ...for
programming reasons.

Thus, both acceleration and velocity can be simply multiplied
by cos(pitch) to reduce their component in the direction of
the observer. The effect is to simply reduce the height of my
predicted brightness curves but not their **shapes**, which
are determined solely by eccentricity and yaw angle.

Do you mean that the effect (a reduction in height of your
brightness curves) is a purely mathematical manipulation for
convenience in your program, or that you predict an actual
reduction in brightness? If the latter, what you are saying
is that the brightness is reduced from what is expected given
the inclination derived from observation.

In general, pitch is a factor in determining brightness.
A factor does not always reduce the resulting value. You
say that multiplying by cos(pitch) reduces the brightness
because you *want* and *need* the brightness to be reduced
in this particular case in order for your program to
produce results which match the observations.

Pitch is a factor in brightness, not a brightness-reduction
mechanism. It cannot be ignored or left out of the equation
without rendering the resulting value meaningless.

Note: It is not possible to resolve the pitch angle from
a point source of light and I know of no method that can
determine the pitch component involved in a measured
velocity. So my radial velocity figures automatically
represent (orbital velocity x cos(pitch).

Conventional analysis gets the inclination of J1909-3744
to better than two significant digits, via two separate
methods, which exactly agree with each other.

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

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

Since the dwarf has no reported brightness variation, if
it varies, the variation must be tiny. Older dwarfs like
this one never have large brightness variations.

How could brightness variation in a dwarf star cause a
delay in pulses from an orbiting pulsar?

Why would it be exactly identical to Shapiro delay?

How could brightness variation in a dwarf star cause a
delay in pulses from an orbiting pulsar unless the pulsar
was behind the dwarf, in a low-inclination orbit, with
the peak of the delay at superior conjunction?

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

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.

I have seen thousands of measurements in astrometry and
geodesy which are consistent with light from all sources
traveling through space at the same speed.

I have never seen any reliable evidence of light from
different sources traveling at different speeds.

Do you only count as 'plain evidence' your interpretations
of the output of your computer simulations, and discount
actual measurements? As far as I can tell from your
comments to George, you still have not got your program
finished and working such that it gives useful output.
So what is the 'plain evidence' you refer to?

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

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

Take an introductory physics or optics course at any college
or university. Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne should each
have several capable of serving your needs. Talk with the
instructor before registration if you can and tell him or her
that you wish in particular to learn about measurement of the
speed of light from moving sources. The measurement is not
difficult but it is something that takes a bit of effort and
initiative. Getting the help of other students makes all the
difference in the world.

Leonard

On 4 Apr, 23:00, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

Henry, observations are not based on velocities, it
is the other way round. Observations are what you see
when you look down a telescope.

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.

On the contrary Henry, I have, you can only think in
terms of Galilean relativity. That's why you can't tell
the difference between you two contradictory statements
above.

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?

No, it contradicts aether theory. You even drew an
animation of a jar full of lasers which would show
that but then refused to complete it when I pointed
out that it would prove you wrong.

...
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?

Because it is a delay of the pulses from the pulsar,
it isn't a brightness thing at all.

Other than some high speed instability, dwarfs are
just hot glowing remnants, they show no significant
brightness variation and though this one hasn't been
measured yet, I wouldn't expect it to be any different
from any other white dwarf.

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.

What does that mean? They are created in supernovae and
the initial spin can partly be the spin of the star
before the explosion and partly created by the asymetric
nature of the blast but both those produce fairly low
rates.

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.

What falling matter Henry, if they don't have a companion,
the ISM is far too thin to have any effect. You need large
amounts of matter, comparable to the mass of the neutron
star, to spin it up.

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.

Henry, go look up the density of the ISM before saying
such things, they only make you look stiupid.

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.

Exactly, that's what your program should provide.

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.

The evidence from Sagnac is that it does and you
have offered no evidence to the contrary. In all
the years you have been posting, you haven't found
a single observation that suggests otherwise.

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.

No Henry, that figure IS the observed one. A simple
raw measurement with no theory applied whatsoever.

Very funny George.

Very stupid 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.

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

Nope, it is complete crap IMHO, I would say SR is valid
with the usual provisos and, like Newtonian mechanics,
is likely to survive whatever refinements affect GR.

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.

You could say ballistic theory predicts the reflected
speed would be the same as the incident, or you could
say the re-emitted speed is c relative to the mirror
but in the Sagnac experiment both give the same result
as the incident speed is c relative to the mirror. End
of argument, but we weren't going to discuss it further.

I'm not discussing it futrther here.

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

correct.

...
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.

You should be able to write it so you just type in
the conventional angles and do a conversion to yours.
That would make it easier for you to compare with the
published data.

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.

I'm sure you will eventually but you can't claim to
have done it yet. I'm not criticising, you clearly
have some work to do extending your program to handle
all these extra requirements I am suggesting.

George

On 5 Apr, 05:14, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
How do you know the claimed Shapiro effect is not something
to do with the brightness variation of the dwarf?

Since the dwarf has no reported brightness variation, if
it varies, the variation must be tiny.

Leonard, there has only been a single measurement
of luminosity so they are not in a position to
publish a curve.

Older dwarfs like
this one never have large brightness variations.

I wonder if Henry could model a binary system of
two dwarfs - why is there no variation.

How could brightness variation in a dwarf star cause a
delay in pulses from an orbiting pulsar?

Why would it be exactly identical to Shapiro delay?

How could brightness variation in a dwarf star cause a
delay in pulses from an orbiting pulsar unless the pulsar
was behind the dwarf, in a low-inclination orbit, with
the peak of the delay at superior conjunction?

Exactly.

George

On 5 Apr, 05:46, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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.

I have seen thousands of measurements in astrometry and
geodesy which are consistent with light from all sources
traveling through space at the same speed.

Henry's own theory says the speeds gets equaised as the
light moves anyway, and the pulsar says that happens in
light minutes so I don't know what he is on about.

George