On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:26:24 -0000, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:57:08 -0000, "George Dishman"
>>>You also know the pulse period is 2.95ms, the
>>>orbital period is 1.5 days and the apparent
>>>radial width of the orbit is 3.8 light seconds.
>>>You can work out the Doppler from those.
>>>> If the pulsar was orbiting a white dwarf, then we would expect to see a
>>>> doppler shift in its light. I assume that's how they deduced it WAS
>>>> the white dwarf in a circular orbit....
>>>Yes, though they measure the time of individual
>>>pulse arrivals rather than the frequency.
>> Ah! That could be misleading.
>Actually no, it gives you more data than
>say a spectrum because you have phase as
>well as frequency.
Yo speak as though the thing is just over the road. You don't understand that
when something is 3000 LYs away, what you see is not what was happening
3000years ago. You are seeing a willusion. Doppler shift can be part of that
willusion and must be interpreted with care.
>>>> the point is, they have no reason to
>>>> accept any of their observed details.
>>>Of course they do Henry, they are observed.
>>>What a strange thing to say.
>> George, I meant, "to accept them as reflecting what is actually happening.
>> are willusory".
>They do reflect what is actually happening
>Henry, it is the manner of the connection
>that is open to interpretation. I think you
>stated it more clearly in another post:
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 00:02:35 -0000, "George Dishman"
>> Measurements are measurements. Interpreting them is another matter.
>>>>>It's quite impressive that those authors achieve better than 1
>>>>>microsecond absolute timing over a several year baseline.
>>>>>Relativistic effects like the Shapiro delay (in both the solar system
>>>>>and the pulsar binary) are quite evident, as shown in the figures. An
>>>>>even more impressive result is that of van Straten et al, 2001, which
>>>>>approaches 35 *nano*second absolute timing residuals.
>>>> The 'Shapiro delay' is none other than the 'Ritz/Wilson' ballistic delay
>>>> due to
>>>> slowing of the light as it escapes.
>>>No it isn't, the effect occurs when the source passes
>>>behind the companion so the ballistic effect would be
>>>to accelerate the light towards the companion then
>>>slow it to the original speed after it passed, it
>>>should produce the opposite of a delay in Ritzian
>> Ah! You make silly mistakes.
>You should have thought it through a little
>> It slows as is escapes its source but accelerates for a short period until
>> reaches the companion. Then it slows again whilst escaping the gravity of
>> There is a net slowing.
>Indeed, but the slowing due to leaving the
>source is always present, that is just what
>is usually called gravitational redshift.
>The change produced by close passage to the
>companion is first an acceleration then a
>deceleration hence reducing the time taken
>compared to the same source when the line
>of sight does not pass close to other star.
You are very confused. The acceleration
and deceleration cancel at equal distances either side. From then on it is
deceleration due to both objects.
You are thinking in terms of path length difference when the light is bent
around the companion.
The BaTh predicts a net slowing due to the GR redshift of BOTH stars and it
also predicts a path length increase due to bencing. The sum of these probably
accounts for the missing '2' between Einstein and Newton.
I'm currently writing a program to simulate gravitational lensing according to
>>>Consider the bending of starlight by the Sun and just
>>>think of it as the bent path being longer than the
>>>straight path if the companion weren't near the line
>> That's a separate effect.
>As you can see from Ned's page, they are
Obviously....but the BaTh predicts the same.
>>>>>I note that there are several pulsar timing archives available on
>>>>>line. You could have attempted to search for, and use, these timing
>>>>>data, but you did not.
>>>> Timing is not what I want to know.
>>>Timing tells you the Doppler shift which is what
>>>you asked for above.
>> If I can get that information it might be of some assistance.
>You already have all you need to work it
>out, see my other post.
it is way past the critical distance for the stated speeds. The program can't
handle this. Extinction effects are also unknown.
I suspect most objecs appear as they would only about 20-50 LYS away but that
figure might vary widely.
>>>>>Your continued indifference to observations which are directly
>>>>>relevant to your claims is troubling (note that there are other
>>>>>observations that are relevant like VLBI, GPS tracking, and binary
>>>>>eclipse timing). If you cherry-pick your data, then what you get is a
>>>> I have looked a t broad range of variable star curves and they can
>>>> all be matched by the BaTh predictions.
>>>> What more proof do you people need?
>>>We have all the proof we need, the pulses produced
>>>when the pulsar is approaching don't overtake those
>>>from when it is receding.
>> You cannot make that claim without considering other factors.
>I have considered them, I gave you the result
>weeks ago, before Jim butted in. However, you
>are unlikely to accept my analysis, it was
>intended as a guide for you to do your own.
You don't understand how time compression operates according to the BaTh.
The frequency we see might be much higher than the real one.
I have a section about this in my variablestars.exe program. (go back to
'startpage' then 'time compression'.)
>>>As for Cepheid's, Kervella et al have used VLTI and
>>>VINCI to measure the angular diameter of L Car. and
>>>the observations match the integrated radial velocity
>>>curve very nicely.
>>>The red dots are the angular diameter measurements, the
>>>blue line is the integrated radial velocity. More info:
>>>What more proof do you need Henry?
>> The trouble with these interferometric results is that they assume light
>> is c.
>> Very funny eh, George?
>What is funny Henry is that you are telling
>me that 'extinction' means the speed IS c by
>the time the light reaches us, you say that's
>why we don't see multiple overlapping pulse
>patterns from the pulsar or spectral lines
>from binaries. The speed of the light wouldn't
>have any effect on the measurements anyway.
George, don't misquote me. I didn't say the speed is 'c' by the time it reaches
us. I SAID THE SPEEDS FROM DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE ORBIT ARE UNIFIED as they
The speeds could be anything wrt Earth.
>> Cepheids DO present a slight problem, however because BaTh predictions of
>> light curve of a 'pulsating stars' could easily be the same as those of
>> orbiting ones.
>That is one reason why trying to get positive
>matches is pointless, you would need to falsify
>the alternative if you were to make a real case.
Pulsating stars are not impossible. The velocity phase relationship with
brightness doesn't appear to match the BaTh prediction but the published ones
make some pretty strange assumptions about delays in order to fit the huff-puff
Frankly, I don't believe the curves I have seen because they were published by
an obvious nutcase anyway.
>> The is no conflict with the BaTh. It can predict the typical shapes of
>> brightness curves, these being for stars orbiting with moderate
>> (0.2) and yaw angles about 120 degrees.
>I thought there was actually a conflict, isn't
>the phasing of the brightness and velocity
>curves in error?
Which ones should I believe? The shapes of both match perfectly. The published
phasing (with assumptions) is out by about 60 degrees.