Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 4 Apr 2007 17:03:26 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

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.

all right it isn't 180 out.

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.

the BaTh and GR agree on this.
I don't think it's important anyway.

Leonard


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

On 5 Apr, 10:02, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:
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.

There are several messages in the thread covering
the same ground and I responded with links to some
pages giving the standard definitions elsewhere. I
think Henry now understands them or at least has
references and he said he might try to do a
conversion in his software.

I'm trying to reduce the duplication in the thread.

George

On 5 Apr, 10:00, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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.

You asked the question Henry, I realise you can't
cope with the answer so your attempt to change the
subject failed. Let's get back to J1909-3744 which
is what this thread has mostly been about. Once you
do that we can look at the other interesting pulsar
systems.

Thank you anyway for refering me to that paper about cepheids, which again
proves my theory correct.

Easy to say, but you are still avoiding answering
the question:

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!!!!!!!!

Don't lie Henry, answer the question. If you match
the velocity curve to the red curve in your program,
not the blue as you incorrectly used to do, what is
the magnitude change given by the green curve?

George

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?

Has it never occured to you that the pulsar pulse might be
strongly reflected from the dwarf?...

No. What would happen if the pulsar pulses *were* strongly
reflected? What would happen to those pulses?

Leonard

On 5 Apr, 11:35, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 00:43:01 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
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
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.

That's silly George.
If a normal star is spinning...as they all do... it will retain its angular
momentum as it dies and shrinks.

It would if it just died and slowly shrank but that's
not what happens. The small core is compressed in the
supernova with the outer layers of the star which have
the majority of the angular momentum being shed to
produce a nebula.

If you do the sums (not trivial!) the initial rate is
too low.

Its rotation rate will steadily increase as
its diameter reduces. It obviously wont fly apart...

It would shrink only to the point where the surface speed
caused material to be shed but that's a slow model, not
a supernova.

.. because if it did we
wouldn't have any pulsars.

Right, hence a different mechanism is need to explain
their existence.

Matter subsequently falling into a neutron star is just as likely to slow it
down as speed it up.

When there is a companion that sheds a lot of matter
I would expect it to be spun up in the same direction
as the orbit of the companion around the pulsar. That
might mean the neutron star being first stopped and
then reversed but if the pair were together as a binary
prior to the initial nova then the directions would
almost certainly be the same to start with.

Anyway, if you do the sums, that's the only way you
can get the speed AFAIK.

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 don't have the same confidence in your shapiro effect/velocity phase
relationship as you do.

You are welcome to try to find an alternative but just
statistically we should expect to see a number of
edge-on systems and there is no reason to doubt that
is the case in the two we are discussing.

I come across many references to 'electron density in space'. Maybe this is one
of the main factors in extinction.

That is what I have been assuming. It is what causes
the dispersion of the pulse that is observed (and
requires a lot of receiver channels to compensate)
so if that plasma causes different frequencies to
travel at different speeds, it seems obvious that it
would be the driver for speed equalisation.

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.

They are measured curves George.

Sure, and pages 9 to 11 explain the mechanism.

Brightness and velocity curves are the same....as I predicted whe you convinced
me to drop incompressible photons. YIPPEE!!!!!

THE BaTh IS RIGHT...JERRY AND GEORGE ARE WRONG....

Nope. Take the velocity curve for RR Lyrae on page 14
and use your prgram to model it. Make sure the variation
is of the right velocity range and tell me how much
lumiosity variation it predicts.

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'.

Don't make me laugh George. You recommened the article..now you are wishing you
hadn't...and trying to make out it isn't correect anyway...

No Henry, I'm telling to it is correct and that you
could have found that and much more on our current
models of variable stars if you bought a book on
astrophysics. The only reason you thought there was
no theory was because you haven't looked in the right
place.

It is the papers that you say indicate we don't have
a model that I am sceptical about because we do have
very good models. I suspect they are talking about
specific details only.

Does this mean that I can no longer have confidence in any web page you cite?

Only the crank ones like this http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/

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.

Authors all say that their dynamincal theory of huff-puffing doesn't tie in
with any theory about brightness variation.

Show me.

I can match any cepheid curve perfectly with BaTh. It that just coincidence
George?

Not a coincidence Henry, just a claim you cannot back up.
Tell me what magnitude variation your program predicts
for a red curve with a peak-peak of 1.3km/s as sown for
RR Lyrae.

George

On 5 Apr, 11:46, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
....
The [Shapiro] delay is caused by the fact that most f the light near hte star is bent and
therefore travels a longer path. The BaTh and GR have virtually the same
equations.

What is the ballistic theory equation?

George

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?

Strange things can happens out there...particularly when
all we are seeing is a willusion that astronomers have
tried to unravel with the wrong theory.

Okay, but how could brightness variation in a dwarf star
cause a delay in pulses from an orbiting pulsar?

And why would it be exactly identical to Shapiro delay?

And 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:

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.

The delay is caused by the fact that most of the light
near the star is bent and therefore travels a longer path.
The BaTh and GR have virtually the same equations.

But less than three weeks ago I watched you and George go
over this, and you decided that BaTh predicts an advance,
not a delay. When the light pulses are on the far side of
the dwarf they are accelerated toward Earth by the dwarf's
gravity, so they take less time to reach Earth than they
would otherwise. If you now believe that BaTh predicts a
delay, you need to work out the prediction and show it.

Leonard

Henri Wilson wrote:

George, your whole argument is based on the shapiro delay
peak being 90 out of phase from the velocity peak.

You haven't calculated the velocity curve yet so we don't
know when the velocity peaks occur, so there is no way to
know the relationships between them and the Shapiro delay
peak. We know that the Shapiro delay peak must be when the
pulsar is at superior conjunction. You have to tell us
where the velocity peaks occur and what their relationship
is to the Shapiro peak.

Leonard

On 5 Apr 2007 04:40:40 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 5 Apr, 12:03, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 00:27:07 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 5 Apr, 05:14, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

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

The BaTh brightness curves of two similar objects in near circular orbit will
just about cancel each other out. It's just like adding two sine waves 180 out.

The spectral lines should rise and fall though but
I admit I was thinking of a situation where the
luminosities were measured separately.

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, you whole argument is based on the shapiro delay peak being 90 out of
phase from the velocity peak.

In our language, that means there is an anomalous increase in pulse separation
90 degree before the velocity maximum.

Almost, it means an increase in separation during the few
degrees prior to 90 and a rapid switch to an anomalous
decrease during the few degrees just after 90.

I think you are misinterpreting the graph.
How could one side be different from the other.


Yet the major axis lies at 35 degrees from the LOS. CMIIW.
If that is true and the orbit is actually elliptical, then the peak radial
velocity might not occur at the side but maybe 20 degrees before it.

Yes, I asked you about the effect of an elliptical orbit
some days ago but you said that rather than causing a
phase shift it made the sinewave asymetric. By all means
revisit that idea, it is what I expected you to suggest.

It will only create a sine wave if the yaw angle is nearly zero.

However, neither Leonard nor I could understand why you
think variations in luminosity of the dwarf can delay
pulses from the pulsar. I see you have commented on
that in another reply about "reflections" from the dwarf
which obviously isn't the case. I'll leave Leonard to
deal with that nonsense.

I didn't mean it like that.
There are many possibilities as to how the presence of a companion might affect
the pulse rate of the star. Shapiro is only one..

George


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