Friction of the vacuum could slow the rotation of pulsars

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Plazma Inferno!, Aug 1, 2016.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    paddoboy simply adheres to the evidence available which you actually have ignored and which simply is highlighted dramatically and accurately in the following data...................

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The figure (from Weisberg and Taylor (2004)) shows the cumulative shift of periastron time for PSR 1913+16. This shows the decrease of the orbital period as the two stars spiral together. Although the measured shift is only 40 seconds over 30 years, it has been very accurately measured and agrees precisely with the predictions from Einstein's theory of General Relativity. The observation is regarded as indirect proof of the existence of gravitational waves. Indeed, the Hulse-Tayor pulsar is deemed so significant that in 1993 its discoverers were awarded the Nobel prize for their work.


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No actually, paddoboy notes that you make assumptions after assumptions starting with the fact that you [1] believe that professional scientists who have arrived at the conclusion of gravitational waves re the H/T system, over 40 years of research, including magnetic fields, would ignore what you are suggesting, then[2] then assume that they dishonestly ignore the result you hypothesise, and [3] assume that they ignorantly went to "preconceived" gravitational waves.
    All from your position of unknown credentials, without any citation or support of any kind, and from the realms of a public science forum.
    Again please study the previous diagram and the evidence for gravitational waves, which of course has since been confirmed within any reasonable definition of a scientific theory.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The claims of Hulse, Taylor and many many researchers has been justified many, many times over 40 years.
    Again, the onus is on you to justify whatever it is you are trying to justify, preferably with a reputable link and/or citation, or an accepted peer reviewed scientific paper.
    Until then I personally claim nothing other then the already accepted, validated first evidence of gravitational waves.
    And as of the 8th day of the 9th month in the year 2016, that still stands as a totally validated claim, within any reasonable definition of a scientific theory.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. dumbest man on earth Real Eyes Realize Real Lies Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,856
    Grok'd!!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following:


    The above post's author believes that curve/theory assumption fitting exercises and consequent dependent claims based on hypothetical grav-waves interpretations of the data, are somehow equivalent to 'evidence for' grav-waves. He doesn't understand the chasm between unproven claims and the observed reality (yet to be refuted by paddoboy) which brings such claims properly into scientific question.


    James R and other Moderators: How can such obvious misapplication of the science methodology by paddoby, and his even more obvious lack of real understanding of anything subtle and/or complex, plus his gratuitous and repetitive personal opinions and claims reiterations cluttering etc, be given so much latitude in science threads? If other posters tried any or all of that here, disrupting and ruining like that almost every good science discussion, they would be banned for days! Oh well, we can only hope for the best while suffering the worst from 'the problem'. Best.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The diagram is a result of the data from the H/T binary pulsar system, which supports the gravitational wave verdict, for which the Nobel prize was given.
    If you wish to invalidate or falsify such facts, then please supply some citation or reference supporting your position being an unknown quantity from a public science forum, and/or submit a paper for peer review if you are capable.
    Until then as of the 8th day of the 9th month in the year 2016, that still stands as a totally validated claim, within any reasonable definition of a scientific theory
     
  9. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following:


    The author of the above quoted post still doesn't understand the difference between claims and observations. I observed a lack of scientific rigor in the methodology of the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers, which strongly indicates that their study was biased and incomplete, as I explained originally. Neither paddoboy nor anyone else has refuted that observation by referencing where the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers actually properly exhaustively and quantitatively dealt with the real alternative cause possibility of Extreme Magnetic Field interactions between the Binary Neutron stars; before opting for the hypothetical grav-waves option.


    The author of the above post also fails to grasp that just because one makes claims it doesn't make them proof against future challenge if the claims can be observed to have been based on flawed studies/papers which did not treat all possible significant alternative effects and causes for what data is observed. And he also still can't seem to grasp that just making a curve-fitting graphing of the data doesn't automatically exclude other interpretations for that data and graphing curve. Many of his own 'reputable people' he referred to, have tried to explain why his approach is not scientific, but rather subject to confirmation biased claims and opinions; to no avail.

    How long will it take for the penny to drop for the above author, especially in so far as everything he is doing wrong against the science methodology is concerned? We can only hope for real unbiased scientific insight to make its appearance in that quarter sooner rather than later. Best.
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Your observations, as you suggest, were highly biased, if made at all, which is evident in the fact that you appear to be against all mainstream 21st century cosmology, as adequately illustrated in your denial of cosmological redshift, and other evidenced based scientific views.
    The onus as you have been told repeatedly, is on you to show good reason why the status quo [the H/T gravitational wave signature] is invalid. You have not done that, and have just rhetorically made assumption after assumption, after assumption.
    40 years of research without any notable contradictions, support the fact that all contingencies, including magnetic fields and even the Shapiro delay were considered and discussed.
    You have not shown anything but unsupported assumptions, as you have elsewhere.
    Your continued use of "proof" is often used by many other anti science adherents with various agendas.
    The H/T observations, evidence and claims, support the recognised fact that this was the first evidence of gravitational waves, which of course has been recently confirmed, within any reasonable definition of a scientific theory.
    Many of the reputable people and papers I have submitted, certainly support and consider other factors such as vacuum friction and magnetic field interactions, but none of that invalidates the incredible accuracy of the evidence showing the culprit for orbital degradation as gravitational radiation.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The penny dropped long long ago my friend and shows this H/T verdict as confirmed as of the 8th day of the 9th month in the year 2016.
    You have yet to show anything positively to the contrary, but I do have a penny when and if you need it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Couldn't be further from the truth!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    The gradual decay in the orbit of H/T binary pulsar due to gravitational radiation is the observed data [dots] agreeing with the predictions of GR [solid line] not withstanding any word salad nonsense that followed the above expletive deleted quote.
    Here it is again......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2016
  12. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following:

    The author of the above quoted post keeps missing the point raised via my original and still unrefuted observation. He doesn't seem to grasp that such curve fitting graphing techniques are not proof of exclusive cause, only modeling fitness. Until the same exhaustive techniques are applied to quantifying and fitting the observations to the known possible extreme effects from extreme magnetic field interaction between the two NSs in the binary dynamics, then the claim for grav-waves as main cause is premature and unscientific. The above poster has yet to show where, in all the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers, the same exhaustive process was applied quantitively to the real magnetic binary interactions possibility as it was applied theoretically to the hypothetical grav-wave assumptions. Will the above poster possibly get that point now, and stop repetitive clutter with claims and assertions which miss the point I raised in my original and still standing unrefuted observation? One can only hope.
     
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    The point missed is simply your own apparent arrogance as expressed in all your posts.
    The H/T binary system stands as is as of the 9th day of the 9th month in the year 2016: ie: the first evidence for gravitational radiation, which of course most of us now know has been confirmed in recent times by aLIGO at least to any reasonable definition of a scientific theory, not withstanding the usual blow hard "proof" nonsense as expressed by religious zealots and other anti science trolls.
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/distance/frontiers/pulsars/section5.html

    The test performed by Taylor and collaborators is actually more subtle than indicated above. We outline the principle in brief: The orbital decay can be described by a decrease in orbital period, Pb, representing one post-Keplerian parameter. Each post-Keplerian parameter can be written as a function of the measured Keplerian parameters and the pulsar mass and companion mass. Measuring one post-Keplerian parameter hence describes a line in a pulsar mass - companion mass diagram (blue line in Figure 2) which depends on the assumed theory of gravity. Measuring a second post-Keplerian parameter provides another line in the mass-mass diagram, which cuts the first line at a certain mass combination. In the case of PSR B1913+16, the red line in Figure 2 results from a relativistic periastron advance, an effect also observed for Mercury in the solar system. Assuming that the theory of gravity being used is correct, two post-Keplerian parameters obviously determine the masses of both the pulsar and its companion, enabling the mass determination for neutron stars as summarised in Section 1.4. For two systems, PSRs B1913+16 and B1534+12, even a third post-Keplerian parameter could be measured (green line). Only for a theory of gravity that describes nature correctly will all three lines meet in one single point. General relativity passed this test with flying colours!


    Figure 2. Derived pulsar and companion masses (mp and mc respectively in solar masses) for the measurement of three post-Keplerian parameters of a binary system, each represented by a different line. If the particular theory of gravity used is to be correct the 3 lines must meet at a single point as shown. Note that any two lines can cross providing a determination of the two masses but only a correct theory will allow all three lines to cross at the same point.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    http://www.bourbaphy.fr/kramer.pdf

    The Double Pulsar Michael Kramer University of Manchester Jodrell Bank Observatory, UK

    Abstract.

    A new era in fundamental physics began with the discovery of pulsars 1967, the discovery of the first binary pulsar in 1974 and the first millisecond pulsar in 1982. Ever since, pulsars have been used as precise cosmic clocks, taking us beyond the weak-field regime of the solar-system in the study of theories of gravity. Their contribution is crucial as no test can be considered to be complete without probing the strong-field realm of gravitational physics by finding and timing pulsars. This is particularly highlighted by the discovery of the first double pulsar system which was discovered by our team in 2003. The double pulsar is unique in that both neutron stars are detectable as radio pulsars. This, combined with significantly higher mean orbital velocities and accelerations when compared to other binary pulsars, suggested that the system would become the best available testbed for general relativity and alternative theories of gravity in the strong-field regime. Indeed, this has been achieved only three years after its discovery with four independent strong-field tests of GR, more than has been obtained for any other system. Use of the theory-independent mass ratio of the two stars makes these tests uniquely different from all preceding studies. Our results confirm the validity of GR at the 0.05% level, which is by far the best precision yet achieved for the strong-field regime. Remarkably, the transverse velocity of the systems center of mass is extremely small, a result which is important for future GR tests and evolutionary studies.

    Summary & Conclusions

    With the measurement of five PK parameters and the unique information about the mass ratio, the PSR J0737−3039 system provides a truly unique test-bed for relativistic theories of gravity. So far, GR also passes this test with flying colours. The precision of this test and the nature of the resulting constraints go beyond what has been possible with other systems in the past. The test achieved so far is, however, only the beginning of a study of relativistic phenomena that can be investigated in great detail in this wonderful cosmic laboratory
     
  16. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following:

    The author of the preceding three posts, #190, #191 & 192, seems to prefer cluttering with already known claims and modeling, while ignoring or denying the point raised by my original observation. He doesn't seem to get that all he is posting is gravity-related exercise and model fitting. None of that addresses the point re extreme effects from extreme magnetic field interactions between the two NSs in the binary dynamics observed. He still hasn't got that unless and until the same exhaustive quantification and modeling and fitting is done for the magnetic field interaction effects, then the grav-wave assumptions, interpretations, model fitting etc is only theoretical not conclusive because the REAL magnetic interaction effects have NOT been exhaustively modeled before the studies/papers made the conclusions based on only gravity related 'fitting'. Where is the same exhaustive study of the magnetic binary interactions! That is all that the above poster has to post. He cannot. So he clutters and sputters and just makes a mockery of both the science methodology rules and the site rules. The moderation mystery attached to the above poster's behavior continues for yet another wasted day due to the above poster's unreasoning denials and ignorance based assertions repeated ad nauseam.
     
  17. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Why Mods are silent on paddoboy emojis?

    They can remain silent on his physics, who cares, but uselessness of frequent emojis in science section can be easily understood. If I were the Mod, I will issue -10 for every blinking.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    At least I am offering science, far different from the pseudoscience offered by yourself and expletive deleted.
     
  19. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following exchange between The God and paddoboy:

    Given what has gone on for the past few days, and what paddoboy has actually posted or not posted, it may seem too cruel to point out the serious flaw in his version of the reality as has been demonstrated over the last couple of days or so. I'll leave him with that self comforting 'version' for now though; no need to rub his nose in it all the time now. Pleasant dreams, paddoboy.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    Given the fact that you have not supported anything you say and likewise the god, and given the fact that all points I am debating at this time are still mainstream accepted science, and given the fact that neither you nor the god will ever invalidate or otherwise discredit any scientific theory from a public forum, my dreams will certainly be pleasent

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    Note the following:

    The above poster seems not to be able to help himself, even when left to sleep on it. He returns with the same old denial and evasion and personal irrelevances, so his nose must be rubbed in the facts and the issue yet again in the hope that one last attempt will elicit reason instead of the usual unreason. Here goes:

    paddoboy, can you please take a breath and stop cluttering; and instead, address yourself to the point highlighted in bold in the post I made earlier, as follows:
    Do you understand that point? If so, can we please cut to the chase, and address yourself to that ONE point in your reply, paddoboy; and please leave out all the usual extraneous matter which is beside that ONE point? Thanks. Best.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,647
    note the following:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I note that your posts reflect a possible problem with your well being.

    It's rather obvious you have a problem, and it needs attention.
    I deny nothing. I accept the H/T binary pulsar decision, which has been researched for 40 years, along with many other similar examples, and discoveries, as the first evidence for gravitational waves.
    That of course has been confirmed since with aLIGO in line with any reasonable definition of a scientific theory.
    You in effect are claiming that hundreds of professionals, over 40 years and many hundreds of scientific papers later, are delusional, stupid and wrong, and have acted dishonestly, all from your position on a public forum, without one citation, or link, and with your own expertise and credentials totally lacking and as a consequence, your credibility. Again, sad.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I have a better idea...as Kittamaru has told you in the past and even today, why don't'you stop trolling.
    I understand that you are dabbling in bullshit and trying to impress people,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    If you were serious, you would write up your nonsense and submit it for peer review, but we all know the answer to that...just as it applies in every one of your anti accepted 21st cosmology rants and crusades.
    Did I read what you highlighted? Once past the first half a dozen words and unsupported nonsense, I stopped. OK?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2016
  23. expletives deleted Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    410
    paddoboy:

    You mischaracterize again, paddoboy. I merely observed a lack in the Hulse-Taylor studies/papers. It is that which is at issue. What comes of it, and any consequent implications for existing mainstream claims re grav-waves etc, is left to the upshot of any actual exhaustive quantification of that REAL effect I pointed to, so as to remedy that lack; and with at least as much effort and fitting etc as was applied for the hypothetical grav-wave assumptions fitting.

    Since you missed that subtle but important point when making your above response, I repost it below:
    Note that I even highlighted the subtle but important bit for you so you wouldn't miss or ignore it again. It would be nice if you could address that ONE subtle but IMPORTANT POINT properly and leave out the irrelevant personal insults and mischaracterizations and evasion tactics, paddoboy. Just for a change. Thanks.
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.

Share This Page