|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:7pdd425t7d19g0actabvbre023asecgph9@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 21:14:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:t64b425cbugm4q1k40t4luaqgk9khfavms@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 09:52:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>
>><snip much, mostly uncommented, I might reply to some later>
>>
>>>>You already accepted some time ago that stars can
>>>>have intrisic variations. The maths in your program
>>>>is wrong. Correct the maths, your program will then
>>>>accurately predict the amount of intensity change
>>>>due to ballistic theory and then you can subtract
>>>>that from the observations to get the intrinsic
>>>>variablity. That would be good science.
>>>
>>> You can't fool me George.
>>> Why don't you just accept your model is wrong.
>>
>>The model I'm using is ballistic theory, I am
>>happy to accept ballistic theory is wrong.
>>
>>> Your maths don't apply to the BaTh.
>>
>>My maths IS ballistic theory.
>>
>>> In this instance, the pulse rate is the carrier.
>>> Your equations apply to IT
>>
>>Then we can agree and proceed.
>>
>>> My program solve your equations iteratively.
>>
>>Your program provides the correct result for the
>>velocity curve based on the PRF as the green line,
>>not the red.
>
> It does indeed. ..the velocity curve of the PULSES...but the observed
> doppler
> shift of the light does not follow this. I wish it did.
Ballistic theory says it does, why do you think it doesn't?
> It would probably
> overcome the distance discrepancy that we normally associate with
> 'extinction'.
If you correct your program to show the velocity curve
obtained from the pulses, we can proceed with that.
>>>>No, we know we are seeing ONE image. There is a single
>>>>sine wave in the FM. If we were seeing multiple images
>>>>there would be beats in the pulse rate between the
>>>>pulse repetition frequencies (standard acronym: PRF)
>>>>emitted at different parts of the orbit. A Fourier
>>>>transform of pulses would give the red curve shown
>>>>here for enough overlap to produce a triple image
>>>>during part of the orbit:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Ritz_Doppler_3.png
>>>>
>>>>and the PRF spectrum would alternate between one line
>>>>and three. That would be slightly beyond critical
>>>>distance. For multiple images, you get more lines
>>>>until with the several hundred that J1909-3744 should
>>>>produce they would become a band spectrum with a sharp
>>>>low frequency cutoff. Reverse transforming that would
>>>>give pink noise, a totally random pulse pattern with
>>>>no discernible timing other than a maximum gap between
>>>>pulses. What is seen is one line at 31.2mHz and a
>>>>second harmonic which if my way of estimating from the
>>>>eccentricity is right would be around 7nHz. This is how
>>>>the PRF varies over the orbit:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/PRF_J1909-3744.png
>>>>
>>>>We are only seeing one image.
>>>>
>>>>> In that case, the predicted brightness curve is quite small and has a
>>>>> rapid
>>>>> rise and something like an exponential drop off. ...that is without
>>>>> any
>>>>> speed
>>>>> unification.
>>>>
>>>>Now try it for a single image with unification.
>>>>
>>>>>>> My latest program (again
>>>>>>> upgraded) shows the predicted shape of pulses caused by multiple
>>>>>>> imagery.
>>>>>>> (Just
>>>>>>> use orbits > 50).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Single image Henry.
>>>>>
>>>>> single star
>>>>
>>>>Single image.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Hint: start at 0.00003c, reduce in small steps and
>>>>>>>>note the trend. Extrapolate the result and try it.
>>>>>>>>Rounding errors are a problem for example try
>>>>>>>>0.00000183c to 0.00000187c in steps of 0.00000001c.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll leave that to you george.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I did, that's why I know your program fails at those
>>>>>>levels. I'll leave it to you to fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are using a different theory altogether.
>>>>
>>>>The program is broken regardless. Try the numbers
>>>>then debug.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well the light from the pulsar system arrives at c
>>>>>>>>measured over a 2AU baseline so you have that to
>>>>>>>>explain as well. Let's see your maths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Whoever measured that speed to be c George.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's that same pulsar again Henry, 74ns residuals in the
>>>>>>pulse sequence from J1909-3744.
>>>>>
>>>>> .....Yes George....but whoever directly measured its light speed
>>>>> George?
>>>>
>>>>That IS a measure of its speed Henry.
>>>>
>>>>>>> It should be c wrt the Earth once it gets into the Erth's atmosphere
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> tat
>>>>>>> doesn't mean it travels at c for the rest of its journey.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it means it travels at that speed for the 2AU
>>>>>>difference across the Solar system as it approaches
>>>>>>Earth.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to see the proof of that.
>>>>
>>>>Do some studying Henry, find out how Roemer measured
>>>>the speed of light.
>>>
>>> Read his answer George.
>>>
>>> Funny how nobody repeats the experiment now that the diameter of the
>>> Earth
>>> is known very accurately....
>>
>>Funny how you agree the what ballistic theory says
>>about the PRF of our pulsar but you refuse to discuss
>>the subject, preferring to bleat on about a load of
>>philosophical nonsense.
>
> Why don't you repeat Roemer's experiment now George?
Trying to change the subject again Henry?
George
|
|
