Re: More Trouble for Relativity

From: jahn (suzysewnshow_at_yahoo.com.au)
Date: 09/24/04 

Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:49:58 -0400

"Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:dXW4d.629$ED.19@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:2rihjcF1atmgqU1@uni-berlin.de...
> |
> | "Androcles" <androc1es@nospamblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gNS4d.515$ED.167@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | >
> | > "jahn" <suzysewnshow@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> | > news:2ri2osF1arjg7U1@uni-berlin.de...
> [snip old matherial]
>
>
> | > | The orbital decay of this system,
> | >
> | > What orbital decay?
> | > You seen to be suggesting that something has changed in the couple of
> | > decades
> | > since its discovery. What evidence do you have for this?
> | "All I know is what I read in the papers."
> | --Will Rogers
>
>
> "Mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences." -- Roger Bacon.
> As neither George Boole nor Alan Turing anticipated individuals would be
> mean enough to write a virus for a computer, Bacon did not imagine that
> Einstein could introduce a mathematical virus into physics, but that is
> exactly what has happened. See "Seven Deadly Sins of Relativity".
> Only believe an eighth of what you hear, a quarter of what you read and half
> of
> what you see.
>
> << Taylor and Hulse found that the stars were rotating ever faster around
> each other in an increasingly tight orbit. This orbital
> decay is presumed to occur because the system is losing energy in the form
> of gravity waves. >>
> http://www.britannica.com/nobel/micro/281_21.html
>
> From the data available, Hulse and Taylor used the mathematics of GR to make
> a prediction which has yet to happen, claiming this as proof of GR.
Not surprising. I have no intenion of subscribing to 'Nature' just so I can get a copy of Bruno Bertotti's Cassini analysis, but I
have been able to pick up enough bits and pieces to see that he does a similar trick. It is claimed that GR pridicts the refraction
in the solar plasma if there weren't any solar plasma or some such nonsense. Harumph!
>
>
> | >
> | >
> | > | suggest some kind of loss. I am not convinced
> | > | that adaquate consideration was given to the possibility that the
> losses
> | > result
> | > | from gas cloud or near-field tidal friction. (They don't award Nobel
> | > prizes for
> | > | discovering those, Eh? ;-) )
> | > | << Abstract
> | > | High mass X-ray binary star systems with elliptical orbits, like GX
> 301-2,
> | > often exhibit a peak in X-ray luminosity associated with
> | > | periastron passage. We use a two dimensional hydrodynamics code to
> examine
> | > the possibility that these X-ray flares result from tidal
> | > | stripping of gas from the primary star, and subsequent accretion of
> this
> | > gas onto the compact companion.
> | >
> | > Funny, but nobody has mentioned the stripping of the asteroid belt and
> | > subsequent accretion onto any compact companion, or the stripping of the
> | > rings of Saturn either.
> |
> | Funny, but nobody has mentioned "Ballistic light" :-)
>
> "The teachings of Aristotle had been banned at the University of Paris for
> several years on the grounds that Aristotle was not a Christian."
> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Bacon.html
>
> The teachings of Ritz, Wilson, Sekerin et al., even J.G. Fox, are currently
> banned (well, suppressed, it wasn't possible to ban Aristotle entirely
> either) from universities everywhere on the grounds that they are not
> relativists.
>
> | >
> | > | We find that if the primary
> | > | star is rotating near corotation with the orbiting compact companion
> at
> | > periastron, tidally stripped gas can accrete, causing X-ray
> | > | flares. Such a tidally induced flare will occur substantially after
> | > periastron, at a phase of ~0.2 for the parameters used in our
> | > | model. This flare is characterized by a brief disk accretion phase
> with a
> | > large angular momentum accretion rate. However, in our
> | > | particular model this disk accretion phase was followed by an equally
> | > brief phase of accretion with the opposite sign of angular
> | > | momentum, resulting in no long-term spin up of the X-ray pulsar.
> | > | >>
> | > | http://www1.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/33/29/27/21/23/abstract.html
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | The possibility of a frictionally lossy gas cloud would seem to make
> this
> | > system
> | > | a poor canditate for finding evidence of "~ballistic~" propagation.
> | > |
> | > | Still... If the c+v effect can leak through, in spite of, the
> plausable
> | > extinction [1]
> | > | in a cloud, the *evidence* seem no less valid.
> | > |
> | > | Sue...
> | > |
> | > | Extra credit:
> | > | Can the ice skater affect his angular momentum by bringing arms in and
> out
> | > | quickly so the motion is a harmonically related to the rotation, thus
> | > achiving
> | > | some gain or loss throught parametric effects the same way a child on
> a
> | > | swing adds energy to his system by periodically changing the length of
> the
> | > | system's moment arm? If so, a mode of gravitational radiation is
> | > suggested.
> | >
> | > No credit awarded for the conjecture "IF there is an orbital decay..."
> and
> | > deduct
> | > marks for the assertion "The orbital decay of this system".
> | > Androcles.
> | >
> | >
> | I have no problem questioning a finding that uses it's own precepts
> | to verify itself. I am for sure not going to wade through all the
> complexities
> | but the below should raise the eyebrows of most logical thinkers.
> | <<V. GENERAL RELATIVITY AS A TOOL
> | As Russell Hulse and I suggested (17) in the discovery paper for PSR
> | 1913 + 16, it should be possible to combine measurements of relativistic
> | orbital parameters with the mass function, thereby determining masses of
> | both stars and the orbital inclination. In the post-Keplerian (PK)
> framework
> | outlined above, each measured PK parameter defines ... >>
> | http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1993/taylor-lecture.pdf
> |
> "Moreover, many pulsars had been shown to be remarkably stable natural
> clocks,"
>
> The problem is, you didn't have any good alternative to compare with and
> neither
> did the Nobel Prize Committee. Winning a one-horse race isn't especially
> difficult.

I see.
>
> I suggest in the discovery DATA for PSR 1913 + 16, it should be possible to
> combine measurements of Keplerian orbital parameters with the mass function,
> thereby determining the mass of one star and its companion, and the
> orbital inclination, and the distance to the system, but Androcles' third
> law is an obstacle.
> Eccentricity and yaw are independent variables which when combined with the
> other three (distance, major axis and period), will determine the shape of
> the curve. However, we can
> double the distance, double the major axis and double the period without
> changing the shape.
> Doubling the major axis and the period involves the masses according to
> Kepler's third law.
>
>
> | Kind regards,
> | Sue...
> | P.S. Anymore if "Nature" or "SciAm" publishes something or it wins a Nobel
> prize
> | ... that is all the more reason to be suspicious. :-/
>
> It certainly is cause to be suspicious of anything involving relativity,
> because relativity is a contagious virus that has the Seven Deadly Sins
> embedded that infects astronomy and physics.
> Walking toward one light source and away from another means c+v, c-v in the
> frame of the walker, and that cannot be reasonably denied. Pretending the
> walker's watch both speeds up and slows down to make it c from both sources
> simultaneously is an absurdity, but a constant c is essential to Hulse and
> Taylor's analysis. It really is that simple.
I see. I was under the impression they simply timed the orbital decay and reasonably eliminated other causes.
> How many times have I been told "You don't understand relativity!" by some
> know-it-all egocentric moron that has no concept of elementary logic?
299 792 458 times ? ;-)
Kind regards,
Sue...

> Androcles.
>
>

Quantcast