Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 4 Apr, 23:02, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

The Sagnac experiment shows it locally. The Sagnac
experiment has been repeated between communications
satellites by measuring the arrival times directly.

Now what evidence can you show that suggests anything
different?

George

Henri Wilson wrote:

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.

You seem to think that quantities are important in science.
You suggest that the speed of light leaving a neutron star
might be c/2, a specific quantity.

Another quantity is implicit in your paragraph above.

You know that the signal received from J1909-3744 is in the
radio UHF band, at 1.3 GHz, or a wavelength of 230 mm.
You must know that UV has a wavelength of around 100 nm.
And you must know that if the speed of the wave was divided
by two, the wavelength would be multiplied by two:

100 nm * 2 = 200 nm

But the result you want on the right side of that little
equation is 230 mm. Your guess that the light would need
to be emitted as UV in order to be received as radio was
off by a factor of over a million. The correct value for
the initial wavelength is 115 mm.

How could you possibly be so enormously far off on such an
elementary calculation? Is it because you have no intuitive
sense of scale? That is what it looks like. You know that
a wavelength of UV is shorter than a wavelength of radio,
but to you that means it is maybe half as long. No wonder
you can't understand how things work.

Leonard

On 4 Apr, 23:53, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

The "stuff that made them" was a star that exploded and
stars don't spin that fast, they would fly apart through
centrifugal force in the process. They have to get down
to their very small size first then be spun up to speed.

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.

Not with the levels of speed equalisation distances
that are given by your program. Only tight binaries
are going to show any effects at all.

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.

All our discussions have been on objects in our
own galaxy. The ISM is what matters as it is
denser than the IGM.

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.

The question remains, if you match the velocity curve
what fraction of the luminosity variation is due to
c+v and what fraction 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

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

I notice you are not acknowledging that your claim
that there was no theory (or more accurately model)
was wrong.

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

Read some textbooks, not papers. Papers focus on moving
the body of knowledge forward and don't usually cover
existing 'state of the art'.

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.

Yes Henry, the stuff you claimed didn't exist.

George

In article om,
Leonard Kellogg wrote:

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


Please don't misuse the words "exact" and "exactly" like that!

Exact matches (i.e. matches with zero error - not just negligible, but
exactly zero, error!) exist only in pure mathematics. Matching
observations to models means you'll have to deal with real-world
observations, and they have errors which, no matter how small,
*always* are larger than zero. There might be an exact fit of course,
but you won't know until you're able to perform measurements with zero
error. And that will never happen.

Please refrain from using the words "exact" and "exactly" in contexts
involving observational data. Instead use "accurate" and "accurately" !!!

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

On 5 Apr, 00:14, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

ROFl, Henry you are a card. Some are perhaps getting
frustrated because every test performed shows GR is
perfect but we know it is incompatible with QM. They
NEED a discrepancy so they can test string theory and
hopefully point at something better.

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.

Not a chance, it can't even explain Sagnac, and
tell me Henry, how does ballistic theory explain
gravity?

... 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.

Keep repeating that lie often enough and you might
convince yourself it is true even though your
animation proved it false. Oh, I forgot, you left
out the second part so you didn't have to admit
you did that.

restoring context
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.

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.

Try to change the subject again Henry? I am still waiting
for you to show your maths that says ballistic theory
predicts a delay for the Shapiro effect.

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.

Why do you need to know about the dwarf to explain an
effect within the solar system? That is the weakest
excuse you have come up with yet.

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..

It is a mojor energy loss in accelerators, hence the name.

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

The star rotates at 435 Hz. At what radius would
the field be moving tangentially at the speed of
light? It can't be more than 115 km by mental
arithmetic. Think before typing Henry.

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.

Rubbish, 45 microseconds is 13km so that is the maximum
radius of your pocket even if the whole thing was heated
and cooled instantly. A bigger region would produce a
longer pulse as the light from the limb would take longer
than the light from the facing surface.

Now work out the surface brightness given that we see the
signal in RF but not visible so it must be cool, then work
out the luminosity. There's no way you can get anywhere
near the energy levels observed.

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.

Look at Sean's idea on how light travels in a cycloid!

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.

There is no reason why it should and we went over
the ballistic model in the previous post, reference
above, and you folllowed why it is an advance. It
is the opposite of what GR predicts.

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.

It was your phrase "quality of space" that gave me that
impression.

Mine is 'speed wrt other light going in
the same direction'.

Now that is nuts. How does one pulse know what any
other pulse is doing Henry, are there superluminal
particles flying between them to transfer momentum
and equalise their speeds? How does each pulse know
which other pulses to match to, they can't equalise
with light from other stars going the other way or
they will all stop !!!

'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".

Hilarious Henry, it's great watching you backpedal
when you have shot yourself in the foot :-)

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.

What?

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

Yes. These can be interesting.

Easy but uninformative.

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.

No it isn't. I'm still waiting for you to calculate
how much is due to c+v and how much is intrinsic
for one of these examples. You will understand why
it isn't evidence in your favour when you do that.

George

On 4 Apr 2007 22:17:27 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

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.

There has never been a OWLS measurement from a source at rest, let alone a
moving one.
You are really showing your ignorance now.

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


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

Paul,

I'm using the expression "exact match" to mean a match
to within the ability to measure. Is that objectionable?
A rational person would not mistake a set of measurements
which cannot be distinguished from the predicted values
for infinite precision of each measurement. Every
measurement has some uncertainty, and allowing for that
uncertainty, the matches I referred to are exact.

Leonard

On 5 Apr 2007 00:32:01 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 4 Apr, 23:02, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 06:03:49 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

The Sagnac experiment shows it locally. The Sagnac
experiment has been repeated between communications
satellites by measuring the arrival times directly.

George, I appreciate that you want to change the subject away form pulsars now
that, with your help, I have shown why the whole of astronomy is wrong.

Thank you anyway for refering me to that paper about cepheids, which again
proves my theory correct.
As I have been pointing out, according to BaTh, the brightness and velocity
curves should be the same.... or almost....and guess what. THEY ARE!!!!!!!!

Now what evidence can you show that suggests anything
different?

George


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

George,

Henri Wilson wrote:

I still can't understand their claims about phasing.

I expected you to respond to that, or I would have, except
that I'm not certain what Henri's confusion is.

Leonard

"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message ups.com...
George,

Henri Wilson wrote:

I still can't understand their claims about phasing.

I expected you to respond to that, or I would have, except
that I'm not certain what Henri's confusion is.

Leonard

It's simple enough, Wilson doesn't know what 'phase' means.
If you try to explain it to him he says "No".