sci.astro
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: Henri Wilson
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 21:26:59 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 19:57:08 -0000, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
>news:m7ma12t3siivr2buubdhhtvgb5n9e13med@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On 13 Mar 2006 01:16:36 -0600, Craig Markwardt

>> I need to know the doppler shifts wth time. The orbit is supposedly very 
>> nearly
>> circular.
>
>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.
>
>>>> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0507/0507420.pdf
>
>...
>> If the pulsar was orbiting a white dwarf, then we would expect to see a 
>> normal
>> doppler shift in its light. I assume that's how they deduced it WAS 
>> orbiting
>> 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.

>
>> 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. They
are willusory".

>>>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
>theory.

Ah! You make silly mistakes.
It slows as is escapes its source but accelerates for a short period until it
reaches the companion. Then it slows again whilst escaping the gravity of the
pair.

There is a net slowing.

>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
>of sight.

That's a separate effect.

>http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html
>
>>>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.

>
>>>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
>>>cherry-picked theory.
>>
>> I have looked a t broad range of variable star curves and they can 
>> virtually
>> 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.

>
>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.
>
>http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/images/phot-30c-04-normal.jpg
>
>The red dots are the angular diameter measurements, the
>blue line is the integrated radial velocity. More info:
>
>http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-25-04.html
>
>What more proof do you need Henry?

The trouble with these interferometric results is that they assume light speed
is c. 
Very funny eh, George?
 
Cepheids DO present a slight problem, however because BaTh predictions of the
light curve of a 'pulsating stars' could easily be the same as those of
orbiting ones.

The is no conflict with the BaTh. It can predict the typical shapes of cepheid
brightness curves, these being for stars orbiting with moderate eccentricity
(0.2) and yaw angles about 120 degrees.
 
>George
>


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>