Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

We discussed that before, frequency is the derivative of
time delay, or see Leonard's more detailed explanation.
It is that sudden change from an anomalous increase to
a decrease that I think will be difficult to reconcile
with the smoother curves of the low eccentricity
solutions.

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.

OK, so you are saying you cannot create a phase-shifted
sine wave using yaw, I am content to accept that for the
moment. In that case you cannot use yaw to cancel out a
phase shift of the TDoppler caused by the addition of a
significant amount of ADoppler to the larger VDoppler
and that means you can figure out an upper limit for
the speed equalisation distance. My rough calculation is
of the order of a light minute.

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.

OK.

There are many possibilities as to how the presence of a companion might
affect
the pulse rate of the star. Shapiro is only one..

Many? Tell me some. AFAIK there is nothing else.

George

I think I missed this one, much of it has been
covered elsewhere.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 30 Mar 2007 03:25:40 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 30 Mar, 07:07, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 29 Mar 2007 17:24:58 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg"
wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
....
Obviously however the speed of a pulse cannot be unified with that of
another
that hasn't even been emitted.
I'm somewhat mystified by this.

You need to step back a little and look at the problem
a different way. The VDoppler as you said produces a
relatively small brightening effect so for high values
we can assume ADoppler is dominant. The equation for
ADoppler without speed equalisation is is 1/(c^2-da)
where d is the distance from the source to the observer
and a is the instantaneous acceleration towards the
observer at the time of emission.

I get c^2/(c^2-da) ....no worries...

True, the full TDoppler combines that with the VDoppler
formula of (1+v/c) so the whole is c(c+v)/(c^2-da) and
I tend to think of (c^2-da) as the ADoppler term within
that. The infinity occurs when da=c^2 either way.

The value c^2/a is
then the "critical distance". Obviously that depends on
the acceleration which in turn depends on the period.
Note also though that the component of the acceleration
towards the observer also depends on the pitch.

Hold a circle in front of you at any angle. (or an ellipse)
Rotate you head until you find an axis in the plane of the circle that
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.

Or sin(inclination) in standard terminology, yes.

What that means is that for a high brightness, the
speed equalisation distance has to be an exact fraction
of the "critical distance" which means the properties
of the space the light passes through depend on the
inclination of the orbit.

That's OK. Cos(Pitch) is included in the velocity figure.

That misses the point. For a given luminosity variation,
you have to be effectively "seeing" the source from a
distance which is a precise fraction of c^2/a. The
"seeing" distance is the speed equalisation distance
for much larger real distances hence the connection.

You said above "I'm somewhat mystified by this." and if
you step back and think about what I said you should
understand the link.

Basically you have to invent this "speed equalistion"
factor and set it to an orbit dependent value to avoid
de Sitter's argument. You can set a low value but then
you get no brightening and Doppler effects are no
different to conventional values, but to get any of
the effects you have been claiming over the years, you
have to have the "properties of space" being entirely
dependent on the source acceleration and the inclination
of the orbit.

George, frankly I cannot see where you got the idea that the ratio of
VDoppler
to ADoppler is in any way connected to the 'extinction distance'.

We covered that elsewhere, the known relationship at
that phase (ADoppler = VDoppler) allows you to set an
upper limit on the distance, it is a measurement
technique, not a physical relationship.

The '45 degree' point is just a result of the minute difference in travel
time
due to the distace being modified by Rsin(xt). It is just a second order
trigonometrical fact, quite negligible at normal star distances.

Extinction is a property of the space through which the light has to
travel.

Yes, but we can measure one and not the other. Using
the phase tells us where the effects are equal.

Inclination is particularly telling. It means if we see
a star with high variability, the speed equalisation
distance must be very close to the critical distance,
and that means another observer looking at the same
star form an inclination a few degrees less would see
multiple images. However there is nothing special about
us so we should see some stars showing multiple images
if this model was correct. As you know, we don't.

Sorry George, I think you have gone off the rails here.

It's a more complex point, you probably need to learn
more about ballistic theory before you follow it.

The solution is that speed equalisation must happen
over a relatively short distance and there aren't any
significant brightening or ADoppler effects.

It doesn't have to happen over a very short distance at all.

It does to get the phase right.

You are using the wrong values for your radial velocities. In reality they
are
much lower.
I suspect that DeSitter based his calculations on similarly wrong radial
velocities. I'll look it up.

Over all known binaries, there should be a statistical
spread of inclination (pitch) angles and the orbital
speeds are constrained by Kepler so probably he used
typical values rather than specifics.

I don't think unification takes place as rapidly as I originally
believed. I no
longer need it to explain why my distances had to always be much shorter
than
the Hipparcos ones.

As you can see, the requirement is actually that it
is a lot shorter than you thought.

With a very rough estimate based on your figure of
0.0007 light years for 45 degrees and a phase
uncertainty based on the time spread of 74ns on
a PRF of 2.295ms, I get a speed equalistion distance
of 54 light seconds. That should be typical of the
"property of space" for all stars.

I don't know what you are talking about..

Well punch the numbers into your program and see what
it tells you. I'm working these out mostly using mental
arithmetic with the occassional calculator number so
there's a big risk but they should be in the ball park.

..and I don't think you do either
George.
Your pulsar's true radial velocity (orbit speed x cos(pitch)) is only a
few
metres per second.

0.0013 m/s you said before IIRC. Sorry Henry, that's not
possible. The source would need to be a supermassive
black hole and nearby stars would have their velocities
grossly changed. The whole galaxy would be reshaped in
fact.

The simpler interpretation is that it is nearly edge on
and the speed equalisation distance is much smaller than
you though, in fact in line with the numbers from the
page we discussed before

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/binarie4.htm

where the author gets 0.0045 light years. Of course that
also removes any problems with understanding the Shapiro
delay and apparent eclipsing behaviour of various pulsars.

George

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:
...
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
....
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

That is true but I see Henry as being the crank,
not Ritz. I think it unfair to label the theory
and with it the original author when it was quite
reasonable to advance the idea in its time.

YMMV

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 5 Apr 2007 04:52:07 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
....
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?

Dunno. I haven't thought about it much...but something might happen.

It's simple really, you would see two sets of pulses with
the smaller being a delayed copy of the larger. Unlike any
possible interpulse (the other pole's beam) that delay would
vary with the phase of the orbit.

George

On 5 Apr 2007 17:09:49 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 5, 6:05 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 5 Apr 2007 07:03:31 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:

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.

I'll let you do it. I'm not particularly interested becasue
I don't believe it's a shapiro delay anyway.

I'm quite happy to continue matching light curves.

Er...Henri...

You have NEVER even matched ANY real luminosity curve!!!

You have at best ONLY matched SINGLE CYCLES of the light
curve of a pulsator. Over multiple cycles, the luminosity
curves of pulsators show period noise and amplitude noise.

Consider the luminosity curve of S Cas:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00064.gif

Demonstrate that you can fit the ENTIRE curve from 1921
to 2000 with a single set of parameters.

The plain fact of the matter is, that YOU CAN'T.

Likewise, you have only matched the light curve of
Algol-type binaries AT A SINGLE WAVELENGTH. BaTh predicts
the same light curve for Algol in IR, visible, and X-rays.
In reality, the light curves are dramatically different.
http://www.astro.psu.edu/~mrichards/...h/journey.html

Indeed, there is practically no variability in Algol's
luminosity at X-ray wavelengths.

Algol's X-ray spectrum shows Doppler shifts which are 180
degrees out of phase with the Doppler shifts measured in
visible light (the visible light spectrum being dominated
by that of the primary), but which are completely in phase
with the absorption lines of the secondary which have been
resolved.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ...446346389Guest

BaTh has failed even at the single task in which you
claim it has succeeded.


http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/StupidJerry.jpg

perfect, eh?


Jerry


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

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 09:11:58 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,
George Dishman wrote:

"OG" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
..
Ballistic theory of light.

Light moves at c wrt its source and at c+v wrt an observer moving towards
the
source at v. Photons are lioght bullets fired from a gun.

Extinction is the term used to describe changes in light speed as it
enters a
medium such as a gas. Somebody here reckoned the extinction distance in
air is
about 3 cms. If it is exponential, that would be a kind of 'half
distance', I
suppose.
I extended the scope of extinction to imply 'light speed unification'. I
argue
that all photons moving through space in a particular direction tend
towards a
common speed..but only very slowly. There is good reason to believe that
extinction rates are high in the vicinity of large masses and much lower
in
remote space.
I also believe that extinction is not caused solely by the presence of
matter
but also by other factors such as the presence of fields or by the
interaction
between photons.
It's all a bit speculative although the principle of extinction is
generally
accepted.

"Extinction" as it is generally accepted in astronomy has an
entirely different meaning.

OK , a totally crank theory then with no merit.

The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.

Sagnac performed his experiment which disproved Ritz's idea
in 1913 though I'm not sure whether his motivation was testing
that or Einstein's postulate.

Not worth talking about any further.

The speed equalistion that Henry calls extinction was proposed
some decades back I believe to get round the multiple image
problem and is verging on crank because c-v photons get speeded
up, the rest is complete nonsense of course but as Henry says
even he concedes it is speculative. Being merely an attempt at
an explanation for the phenomenon, it is irrelevant.

George

Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

Why? Because a master crank emered and fooled the scientific world for 100
years...


A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

SR is just a piece of maths. If it is translated into physical reality it
becomes plain old LET.



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

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:26:53 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
...
In article ,
George Dishman wrote:
..
The basic theory that light was emitted at c relative to the
source is not really crank. It was suggested in 1908 by Ritz
as an explanation for the MMx and is quite sensible in that
context. De Sitter pointed out that binary stellar systems
should show multiple images though looking at the numbers
suggests to me that this might only be the case for systems
that are too close to have been resolved in the telescopes
of the time.
...
Back then they weren't crank theories. Today is a different
matter though.....

A lot of originally sound scientific ideas, which were developed
into theories which were tested and later dismissed because their
predictions failed to agree with observations, later reappear as
crank theories, where the crackpot trying to resurrect them ignore
the data and observations which made these theories fail.

That is true but I see Henry as being the crank,
not Ritz. I think it unfair to label the theory
and with it the original author when it was quite
reasonable to advance the idea in its time.

YMMV

George

To everyone: George is presently writing a monumental thesis entitled, "WHY
EINSTEIN WAS WRONG".

He spends hours every day sapping my brains to get material for it.

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

On 5 Apr 2007 15:50:35 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

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.

The graph shows the amount of delay. The delay starts
at a minimum value (no delay) and rises to a maximum value
(14 microseconds or so) as the pulsar approaches superior
conjunction. During that time the pulses get farther and
farther apart as the delay becomes greater and greater.
At the moment of superior conjunction the delay is at its
maximum value. It stops increasing and starts to decrease.
Whereas a second earlier the pulses were spread apart by
the delay to the maximum amount, now they are brought
closer together by the delay to the maximum amount. The
pulses are still delayed, but less and less than at the
peak, and the rate of decrease in the delay is at a
maximum just after the peak.

Explain that to George.

There are many possibilities as to how the presence of a
companion might affect the pulse rate of the star. Shapiro
is only one..

Can you specify another?

Which has exactly the same curve as Shapiro delay?

What are you trying to prove anyway?

The BaTh predicts the same delay as GR.


Leonard


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

On Fri, 6 Apr 2007 12:19:11 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

We discussed that before, frequency is the derivative of
time delay, or see Leonard's more detailed explanation.
It is that sudden change from an anomalous increase to
a decrease that I think will be difficult to reconcile
with the smoother curves of the low eccentricity
solutions.

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.

OK, so you are saying you cannot create a phase-shifted
sine wave using yaw, I am content to accept that for the
moment. In that case you cannot use yaw to cancel out a
phase shift of the TDoppler caused by the addition of a
significant amount of ADoppler to the larger VDoppler
and that means you can figure out an upper limit for
the speed equalisation distance. My rough calculation is
of the order of a light minute.

OK, is there anything wrong with that?

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.

OK.

There are many possibilities as to how the presence of a companion might
affect
the pulse rate of the star. Shapiro is only one..

Many? Tell me some. AFAIK there is nothing else.

I don't have time to think about it yet.
I'm too busy standardising the angles in my program.

George



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

On 6 Apr 2007 08:44:02 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 5 Apr 2007 04:52:07 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
...
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?

Dunno. I haven't thought about it much...but something might happen.

It's simple really, you would see two sets of pulses with
the smaller being a delayed copy of the larger. Unlike any
possible interpulse (the other pole's beam) that delay would
vary with the phase of the orbit.

....and could create a dip in the curve like the supposed 'Shapiro effect'.

George



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