HW@..(Henri Wilson) writes:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 22:27:24 -0000, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
> >> George, the pulsar must be orbiting something for my program to throw any
> >> light
> >> on why its pulses appear to behave as they do.
> >It is orbiting a low mass white dwarf based on
> >it's spectrum. See fig 3 of:
> This doesn't tell us much.
Since it tells us the spectrum of the companion star, and hence the
nature of the companion, your claim is irrelevant.
> >> Please give me the reference again.
> >The pulsar is J1909-3744. The paper I looked at before
> >was this
> >but I think the discussion was prompted by a paper
> >forwarded by Andrew Yee.
> There are too many uncertancies and assumptions for me to do anything
> constructive George.
You've taken some pretty convenient positions so far. When I
mentioned pulsars on June 27, 2005, you dismissed them:
"Henri" writes in <o8gub1df8p1bq7r8mig20dd9210e0q4aeb@xxxxxxx>:
: There is no reason do believe that the rotation of pulsars
: significantly involves the BaT anyway. The velocities might be are
: too small to worry about.
... and ...
: Well, it is not easy to obtain precise information about
: pulsars...so I can hardly even worry about them.
And now that you are getting some information about them, you again
simply dismiss pulsar studies as being "too uncertain" and
"assumptive" for you to do anything constructive. That's quite
In fact, the papers that George cited provide a wealth of information
regarding the analysis techniques and what is known about those
particular pulsars. Of course it's impossible to describe everything
in excruciating detail, which is why references are provided to
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.
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.
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
1. van Straten et al. Nature, 412, 158
2. http://pulsar.princeton.edu/ftp/pub/toa/ or