Friction of the vacuum could slow the rotation of pulsars

To expletive Deleted:
[1] You have been asked repeatedly and respectfully, for your credentials and expertise, in light of your continuous derision of 21st century mainstream cosmology.
That has never been forthcoming: That's your right.
[2]You have been asked respectfully and repeatedly for citations and/or references to support the many unsupported and non mainstream assumptions and hypotheticals that you so fervently claim to be true, not just here but elsewhere, and not just by me but other members also.
Again, you have failed to do that. Again that's your right.

But please in light of your above refusals and/or incapabilities, how do you expect myself or anyone else to take anything you say other than with a grain of salt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The following is an excellent rundown on the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar and the effects observed with relation to gravitational radiation

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro201/psr1913.htm

The Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16:
In 1993, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor of Princeton University for their 1974 discovery of a pulsar, designated PSR1913+16, in a binary system, in orbit with another star around a common center of mass.

Using the Arecibo 305m antenna, Hulse and Taylor detected pulsed radio emission and thus identified the source as a pulsar, a rapidly rotating, highly magnetized neutron star. The neutron star rotates on its axis 17 times per second; thus the pulse period is 59 milliseconds.

After timing the radio pulses for some time, Hulse and Taylor noticed that there was a systematic variation in the arrival time of the pulses. Sometimes, the pulses were received a little sooner than expected; sometimes, later than expected. These variations changed in a smooth and repetitive manner, with a period of 7.75 hours. They realized that such behavior is predicted if the pulsar were in a binary orbit with another star.

The pulsar and its companion both follow elliptical orbits around their common center of mass. Each star moves in its orbit according toKepler's Laws; at all times the two stars are found on opposite sides of a line passing through the center of mass. The period of the orbital motion is 7.75 hours, and the stars are believed to be nearly equal in mass, about 1.4 solar masses. As shown in the figure here, the orbits are quite eccentric. The minimum separation at periastron is about 1.1 solar radii; the maximum separation at apastron is 4.8 solar radii.

In the case of PSR 1913+16, the orbit is inclined at about 45 degrees with respect to the plane of the sky, and it is oriented such that periastron occurs nearly perpendicular to our line of sight.

(Figure from Weisberg et al. 1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Remember that a star in an elliptical orbit will move slower when it is at apastron than when it is a periastron. In an eccentric orbit such as that of PSR 1913+16, the radial velocity varies from a minimum of 75 km/sec to a maximum of 300 km/sec. Hulse and Taylor used their timing measurements of the pulses to infer the details of the orbital motion.

The pulse repetition frequency, that is, the number of pulses received each second, can be used to infer the radial velocity of the pulsar as it moves through its orbit. When the pulsar is moving towards us and is close to its periastron, the pulses should come closer together; therefore, more will be received per second and the pulse repetition rate will be highest. When it is moving away from us near its apastron, the pulses should be more spread out and fewer should be detected per second.

(Figure from Weisberg et al.1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The fact that the negative velocities (blueshifts, approaching the Earth) are larger than the postitive one (redshifts, moving away from Earth) show that the orbit is highly eccentric.

The pulsar arrival times also vary as the pulsar moves through its orbit. When the pulsar is on the side of its orbit closest to the Earth, the pulses arrive more than 3 seconds earlier that they do when it is on the side furthest from the Earth. The difference is caused by the shorter distance from Earth to the pulsar when it is on the the close side of its orbit. The difference of 3 light seconds implies that the orbit is about 1 million kilometers across.

(Figure from Weisberg et al. 1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Since the pulsing of the radio emission from the pulsar can be likened to ticks on a clock, Hulse and Taylor realized that they could look for changes in the ticking caused by relativistic changes in the measurement of time. As seen above, the pulsar's orbital speed changes by a factor of four during its orbit. Likewise, since the orbit of the pulsar around its companion is elliptical, the two are closer together at some times than at others, so that the gravitational field alternately strengthens at periastron and weakens at apastron. Thus the binary pulsar PSR1913+16 provides a powerful test of the predictions of the behavior of time perceived by a distant observer according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity.



When they are closer together, near apastron, the gravitational field is stronger, so that the pasage of time is slowed down -- the time between pulses (ticks) lengthens just as Einstein predicted. The pulsar clock is slowed down when it is travelling fastest and in the strongest part of the gravitational field; it regains time when it is travelling more slowly and in the weakest part of the field.

(Figure from Weisberg et al.1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The relativistic time delay is the difference between what is observed and what one would expect to see if the pulsar were moving in circular orbit, at constant distance and at a constant speed, around its companion.

Space-time in the vicinity of the pulsar is greatly warped. This curvature causes the pulsar orbit to advance.

The orbit of the pulsar appears to rotate with time; in the diagram, notice that the orbit is not a closed ellipse, but a continuous elliptical arc whose point of closest approach (periastron) rotates with each orbit. The rotation of the pulsar's periastron is analogous to the advance of the perihelion of Mercury in its orbit. The observed advance for PSR 1913+16 is about 4.2 degrees per year; the pulsar's periastron advances in a single day by the same amount as Mercury's perihelion advances in a century.

(Figure from Weisberg et al. 1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Relativity predicts that the binary system will lose energy with time as orbital energy is converted togravitational radiation.

In 1983, Taylor and collaborators reported that there was a systematic shift in the observed time of periastron relative to that expected if the orbital separation remained constant. In the diagram shown here, data taken in the first decade after the discovery showed a decrease in the orbital period as reported by Taylor and his colleagues of about 76 millionths of a second per year. By 1982, the pulsar was arriving at its periastron more than a second earlier than would have been expected if the orbit had remained constant since 1974.

(Figure from Weisberg et al. 1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

In the intervening decade, continued timing of the pulsar shows the continued decrease just as predicted by Einstein.

Because the binary system is losing energy, the orbits are shrinking, and someday the two stars should coalesce. Such a merger might produce strong enough gravitational radiation to be detected by instruments like the Laser Inteferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory now under contruction.

The pulsar's orbit is shrinking with time as shown in this diagram; currently, the orbit shrinks by about 3.1 mm per orbit. The two stars should merge in about 300 million years from now.

(Figure from Weisberg et al. 1981)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll try again, zeroing in on what seems to be confusing paddoboy; as follows:



@ paddoboy:

Thankyou for agreeing that much, paddoboy.

But I just pointed out that, even within your own linked references, no relevant Hulse-Taylor etc NS-Binary study papers, interpretations or conclusions ever actually properly considered, let alone seriously quantified, the potential for braking and effects of the TWO close-proximity Binary Pulsars' mutually interacting extreme magnetic fields on the observed Binary Period decay rates observed (which they just attributed to gravitational waves simply because GW theory and expectations and models was what they were concentrating on with a view to 'confirming' their 'mathematical templates').

Please see previous item where I point out that all the relevant studies/papers and treatments were direted primarily towards 'confirming' GW theory, models and 'mathematical templates'; all of which were formulated and adjusted etc for that purpose; but that 'fitting' process did not include or consider the possible stronger interactions between the NS binary's magnetic field braking etc which I have pointed out now.

Please realize that IF the strong mutual interactions between the two NS's respective magnetic fields have YET to be taken into account by any of the studies and papers which led to the claims of 'confirmation' for gravitational waves based on the Hulse-Taylor etc interpretations, then that claim and interpretation supposedly supporting gravitational waves explanation for the observed NS Binary Orbital Period changes, is not yet properly TESTED until they DO take what I have pointed out properly into account as a possible main cause; which when they DO that may make the claims for gravitational waves as 'main cause' open to serious doubt; which in turn may have ramifications for all the aLIGO claims of alleged quadrupole-type gravitational wave 'detections'.

I made no assertions. I merely observed that the potentially hugely strong braking effects from any extreme magnetic field interactions between any sufficiently strong dipolar fields, such as we know must exist (the possibility of which you have now agreed above in Hulse-Taylor etc scenario) haven't been properly considered and quantified in any of the relevant studies/papers I have read.

So you see paddoboy, there is no reference that I (or you so far) can present which actually takes this NON-gravitational-wave possible explanation into account before concluding that gravitational wave process is the 'main cause' and 'explanation' etc!

I trust you are now clear about what issue this is actually about, paddoboy.

But again: if you or anyone can link to a study or paper where it (the real processes and effects that I have pointed out) was actually properly considered and quantified before they settled for the hypothetical gravitational wave 'conclusion', then I would thank you heartily!

Until that happens, I still await such references from you or anyone which support your contention that they did take it into account (so far all your references merely confirm what I initially observed, so you have not yet proven your assertions against that relevant observation of mine).

Paddoboy, please do me a great favor; please take ample time to review and reconsider carefully before repeating your opinions and misunderstandings about what you are reading in your own references and my responses. Thanks. Best.


ON EDIT: Paddoboy, you are still posting stuff related to timing observations and gravitational field effects on same. That is already understood by all by now. The matter I pointed out had nothing to do with the gravitational field effects. Please stop cluttering the thread up with gravitational field considerations when this thread and our exchange is about NON-gravitational field/wave aspects. Please focus on what is required; as already clarified between us above. OK? Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry ol chum, paddoboy is not confused, its you problem with confirmed gravitational wave that is the cause of this debacle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have never disagreed with that possibility, so why imply any different?
Not very honest I suggest.

Wrong as I pointed out, [1] You are in no position to speculate that they never considered the issue, and [2] They most certainly as professionals would have considered it as magnetic fields as referenced in my links, were discussed.

That is just pseudoscience.
All contingencies have been accounted for as detailed in my many links and gravitational waves were the best fit.
Since then of course the ultimate direct detection of these beasts have been confirmed.

Your retraction in the assertiveness noted and appreciated, just a couple of points you must accept, [1]"hugely strong braking effect" obviously a statement to impress,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

is exaggerated at best and wrong at worst. [2] they obviously as detailed in my links were considered by professional scientists, and [3] Gravitational waves was the final verdict, which [4] has not changed in the intervening 40 or so years.

As a science forum lay person like myself, I can understand somewhat your inability to understand properly. I suggest more reading of reputable material.
The prime effects and reason for orbital degradation in the Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system is gravitational radiation for which the Nobel prize was given. That result is as good as confirmed, not withstanding the noisy chatter and rhetoric from a group of unprofessional lay people on a remote science forum.

I have always been clear.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar syetem was the first validated observation of gravitational waves:

[1] You seem obsessed with gravitational waves being hypothetical: Wrong. [2]What is highly hypothetical and totally speculative is your assumption that magnetic fields can account for all orbital degradation: Wrong again, [3] The onus is on you to give some citation, reference, and/or link supporting the story you are presenting,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

[1]You should now understand that "proof"with regards to scientific theories is not applicable, and the sort of nonsense some of our religious nuts go on with, [2]All my references confirm that [a] magnetic fields were discussed and considered, and gravitational waves was the prime instigator. [3]again, the onus of evidence to support your stance is on you, not me. So how about stop pussy footing about and undertake your assigned task? [if you are able to]

You mean as your own repeated unsupported opinions, misunderstandings and errors.

So you agree that gravitational field effects are the prime concern?
And please don't accuse me of cluttering this thread, when all I am doing is showing you and your usual apparent anti 21st cosmology stance, as irrelevant and plain wrong.
More to the point while I continue with the scientific content, you continue to ignore requests for your own citations, links or references to support your stance.
Funny that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ paddoboy:

I have merely observed the lack of proper consideration and quantification of the matter I spoke about, which has nothing to do with gravitational fields/waves. It seems you that is confusing yourself by bringing in matters not relevant to the point as I observed it.

Yes, but you kept dismissing it as a likely possibility to explain the observations. That was the only point of disagreement about that.

It must be apparent to all observers that I am far more qualified to properly read and properly understand scientific papers and explanations than you have proven yourself to be so far in the matter of reading and understanding even your own linked references.

Does it not strike you as speaking volumes that no learned member has come to your aid? Can it be because they too cannot find any relevant Hulse-Taylor Binary NS system etc study/paper which actually considered and quantified the real effects I have alluded to (and which anyone can confirm for themselves via strong magnet experiments and theoretically extrapolated according to what we know about extreme magnetic fields that must also be interacting between any TWO close-proximity Pulsars as in Hulse-Taylor etc binaries)?

But I keep pointing out, even via your own references, that all contingencies have obviously NOT been accounted for IF the extreme magnetic field interactions between the TWO NSs have not been properly considered and quantified before going straight to "gravitational waves did it" conclusions. Has that not got through your prejudicial attitude based on your own obvious misunderstandings of what you read in your references and my posts? Please take the time to read and consider properly and objectively before reacting.

And as James R and Prof Max Isi also said recently, the alleged 'gravitational wave detections' by aLIGO may also turn out to be explicable by other theories, so your continued claim that said GWs have been 'confirmed' is too premature. Please take note of their caution, paddoboy.

Your use of "retraction" is inappropriate in the context. I have tried to 'tone down' my exasperation for long enough to try and get you to tone down your own misplaced confidence in your own and the relevant scientists' 'inerrancy'.

And your own references confirm that magnetic fields around NS can be EXTREMELY STRONG indeed at stages when no plasma material mass-exchange/accretion processes is shielding or affecting the spin rates and magnetic field generation coupling processes. So my use of "hugely strong" is obviously not an 'exaggeration' as you just incorrectly insinuated. If you do not read your own referenced material, then don't be so ready to make assertions for which you have no real basis in fact.

Aren't your own linked reference papers "reputable material", paddoboy?

Reading them and understanding them properly seems to be what you are failing at so far; since you have still not realized that they do NOT cover what I raised in discussion that has nothing to do with gravitational field/wave, mass-transfer and plasma shielding etc aspects; but only to do with extreme magnetic field interaction between the TWO NS extreme magnetic fields which may affect the observed Binary Orbital Period in the Hulse-taylor etc cases.

That you are still not quite up to speed with that realization means it is you has the problem not me. And again consider why no learned person here has helped you. If what you keep asserting is true, then they surely by now would have pointed where the relevant studies/papers did consider and quantify what I point out?

Maybe you might take time to consider that my observation may be correct, paddoboy? Which would explain why no learned member has come to your aid with the necessary relevant info?

Until that happens, I cannot reasonably be expected to find/post links to things which so far seem not to exist in the relevant scientific literature; now can I, paddoboy?

You just restating conclusions/history re gravitational wave claims and awards is neither here nor there in the context of the point and observation being raised and discussed between us now, paddoboy. Please don't clutter the thread with more irrelevant conclusions which may be still open to challenge, as explained. Thanks.

You seem too free with your "confirmed" and "conclusions" repetitiveness, paddoboy. Have you forgotten what James R and Prof Max Isi had to say on such matters as 'cofimation' and 'proofs' and 'alternative possibilities' etc? Go read their advice again, paddoboy. Then stop defaulting to such unfounded and irrelevant claims of 'gravitational waves confirmation' and other personal or religious association and attributions which don't exist in fact (at least as far as an atheist and scientist such as myself is concerned). Thanks.

That is what I tried to tell you all along was what the studies/papers treated, and what their whole thrust and modeling and fitting and considerations were aimed at; and why I made the observation that the likely strong braking effects from the Hulse-Taylor etc TWO NSs' extremely strong interacting magnetic fields were not even properly considered let alone quantified! Haven't you been 'listening' until just now?

All you have posted is your misunderstood opinions as to what is actually discussed in your own references. All of it (gravitational field, plasma/mass exchange etc effects) has nothing to do with the issue I raised and which you have problems with but cannot support your assertions against it; that is: did they or did they not actually consider and quantified the possible extreme braking effects from the two NSs' interacting extreme magnetic fields?

See now? Nothing you have posted so far has even touched on that aspect, let alone properly treated it in the context of possible explanation for the observed Binary Period decay (which if they do eventually do that, and find that the effect I have alluded to explains the observations, it would then necessitate a review of all the gravitational waves claims, assumptions and conclusions since the Husle-Taylor interpretations were launched into the scientific literature).

I trust you now are clear on what it's actually all about, paddoboy. Thanks. Best.

 

Wrong, the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system is all about gravitational radiation and is the mainstream accepted theory: FACT

Wrong again: I dismiss your disguised assumption/claim that it accounts for the total orbital degradation of the system and others in question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your peers are the best judge of your competence or otherwise, just as they are of mine.
And yet it has been rpenner that has sen the need to calm you down twice in another thread, and others reprimand you for your rather short sightedness in other threads also like Dave and PhysBang. Most though seem to be ignoring you in this one as the subject as I have detailed aligns with GR type gravitational waves as per previous diagram.

Or possibly because they also see it as an open and shut case for which the Nobel prize was given and the fact that you keep ignoring relevant questions and emphasis'anyway: And possibly because they may see me as handling you quite adequately.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Wrong once again: Magnetic fields were discussed and as learned men these professionals realise that while it would have some bearing, perhaps as in the situation in the OP, the main culprit is, wait for it! gravitational waves!
Whay are you so backward in accepting that fact?

I suggest you read Prof Isi's e-mail again and also what James had to say, and of course all in relation to that word you have used at times, and that some religious god botherers use: PROOF
You do realise the significance of the stupidity of using that word when discussing scientific theories, don't you?
So why do you use it and seemingly base your argument/position on it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I appreciate your retraction anyway, despite the apparent pain of such.

I stand corrected and actually happy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Don't you now see the futility and stupidity of trying to claim magnetic fields as the culprit and ignoring gravitational waves?
The professionals are aware of both, but they don't invalidate either gravitational waves or magnetic field lines. Can you see that point?

Sure! They support gravitational waves, give the diagram showing how GR gravitational waves and orbital degradation match up near precisley, as well as considering magnetic field interactions.

I would really rethink your position at this time and find out why you let your obsession with the non exstence of gravitational waves interfere and cloud your judgement in what I have said, respectfully of course.

I see no learned person supporting your case either my friend, most likely as the evidence supporting my case is irrefutable while you fail to answer or support your own case. So why would they get into such a senseless debate with someone that ignores requests to support his case but just continues with plain old rhetoric. And I'm handling you OK.

Tell me, in a sentence what is your case. That gravitational waves do not exist?
That magnetic fields could add to orbital degradation"? I agree. That magnetic fields are the only culprit that cause orbital degradation? Rubbish. That the scenario re the vacuum in the OP is the cause of orbital degradation? partly possible yes. That gravitational waves do not cause orbital degradation? Wrong!
Take your pick my friend.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's all see where you are coming from.

Rubbish. That's just a cop out!
You can't find relevant scientific literature to support your case because it doesn't exist.
Magnetic fields possibly have an effect but gravitational waves do also. DO YOU AGREE?

Everything I post here and elsewhere with regards to yourself and your other erroneous views on 21st century cosmology, all refute your position: That will continue to the best of my ability, OK?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system was the first validated observation of gravitational waves:

 

In summing up and ignoring some of the obfuscation, obtuseness and plain misunderstandings being displayed in this thread, It should be summarised as follows.
[1] The OP by Plasma critiques a scenario with friction of the vacuum spacetime:
The Casimir effect could be said to be an example, so yes certainly a possibility.
[2] Magnetic field interactions between binary systems can also be a cause and never denied despite claims to the contrary.
[3] Gravitational waves that aligned with the Einstein GR predictions and as shown in the following diagram, from a previous link:

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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

@ paddoboy:

Ahhh, I think I have put my finger on the cause of your confusion, paddoboy.

The above OP is about ONE NS 'pulsar' rotation; not about a DOUBLE-NS 'pulsar Binary system' Orbital Period.

You must differentiate the two when reading and understanding anything said in relevant papers and in my posts. Thanks.

As for your continued insistence re gravitational wave aspect, it is not relevant in our discussion here.

Please do not keep obsessing on that aspect in this thread; leave that separate discussion for any of the other appropriate thread(s) already open for discussing that aspect (as moderators have often advised in the past when people drag in other matters/people into a thread not dealing with them).

Thanks.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nice try, but sorry , no cigar!
As my links illustrate, I understand perfectly: I also understand the problem you are having in deciphering the papers and my posts with consistent monotony.
When you understand the overwhelming evidence supporting GR gravitational waves, then and only then will you be aware of the general shortcomings in your posts.

And that dear friends and observers, is why we are having this problem with ed being unable to accept the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar gravitational wave observations.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Sometimes it is necessary to illustrate a point, such as for example, a particular person,s fanatical objection/s to all things accepted by mainstream cosmology. Reason? Because that is not a logical stance in anyone's language and often denotes some extra baggage or agenda, often religiously inclined, that prevents such acceptance of that which is generally fairly obvious.
When you finally recognise the validity of the Hulse Taylor observation, plus that of aLIGO, within of course the general aspect of what a scientific experiment and observation entails, rather than clinging to the "PROOF" nonsensical demand as often used by god botherers, then your blinkered view may be erased.

 

Oh, sorry ed, I almost forgot...You again have failed to answer the following questions: So again I will ask you respectfully to consider answering them, if only for your own satisfaction of having your posts maintaing any air of credibility.

Also the following previous beautiful diagram as to how well the orbital degradation follows the GR gravitational wave observation.

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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

To be fair to all, energy loss between binary neutron stars could be due to following factors...

1. Gravitational Waves (Radiation).
2. Friction of vacuum.
3. Normal Radiation.
4. Something else.

The H-T observation over a period of 30 years talk of 30 seconds shift in orbital time and that is attributed to Gravitational Waves. The open question is how much energy is lost on account of 2,3 and 4 and how much it could have contributed in orbital decay. If it is predominantly 1, then it is settled, but if it is 2 which we may know now, then things are tough for H-T calculations.

 

You've done reasonably well. [nice game] Of course it is settled within reason and as well as can be expected with the precision of the measurements as detailed in the above graph and within the bounds of what a scientific theory entails. But you are surely not going to do what expletive deleted is trying to push re the "proof and proven" concept are you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's leave that to the rantings and ravings of our YEC's and other god bothering friends.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Attention expletives deleted:

You have been advised that conflicts of personality can be argued out in thread. If you disagree with what someone has posted, reporting it is NOT the proper way to address it; if you post unsupported bunk, expect to get called out on it. If a theoryis effectively dismantled and you repost it without either substantial new evidence or other backing, expect to get called out on it. This is a hard-science sub-forum after all... pseudoscience and alternative theories have their own subsection.

If, however, you are simply looking for a soapbox from which to peddle personal pet theories, then might I suggest Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, or any of the host of social media websites out there?

To set the record straight, Paddoboy has, in fact, been issued 3 warnings within the past month for posts that focus on the person rather than the argument (ad hominem and otherwise personal attacks). Do not, however, clog the forums up with whining about being unable to create a well supported argument.

Meanwhile, I have moved the last few utterly off-topic posts out of this thread and into their own thread, which you can find here:

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/pe...um-could-slow-the-rotation-of-pulsars.157618/

If you two wish to bicker like old lovers, feel free, but keep it contained therein, or otherwise on-topic.

 

Back on track...
In essence the Hulse Taylor Binary system was the first evidence and observation indirectly of gravitational radiation in 1974. This has been recently confirmed with the aLIGO findings.

The subject of the OP re vacuum friction is imo also another likely cause in addition to gravitational radiation of orbital degradation, as also may magnetic field interactions, in addition to, and certainly not exclusive of gravitational waves.
But the fact remains that the results point to gravitational radiation as the prime cause, and in line with "the scientific method" and what a "science theory" entails, and ignoring any of the often used god bothering arguments re "proof and proven", gravitational waves can be said to be the cause of the Hulse Taylor binary pulsar orbital degradation, with confidence.
To claim anything else, is alternative and should be in the appropriate section.
Edit: With regards to the last sentence......
To claim anything else at the exclusion of gravitational waves is alternative and should be in the appropriate section.

 

Worth noting that with the first evidence for gravitational waves with the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system, and the gravitational waves conclusion, that one of the prime instruments that was responsible for some of that data and research was the PARKES radio Telescope west of Sydney, and which I visited a couple of months ago.

https://csiropedia.csiro.au/pulsar-surveys-and-the-discovery-of-the-double-pulsar/

http://www.atnf.csiro.au/outreach/visiting/parkes/index.html
Parkes Observatory home page-for professional astronomers and technical information

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And some trivia...
There was also a Movie with "the dish" [the Parkes telescope nickname] and its involvement with receiving the first communication from Apollo II and relaying it to Houston and NASA.

 

In summing the following paper details and obviously supports the gravitational wave as the prime medium by which the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar orbital degradation is taking place and how it has taken place in other binary systems also.........
https://www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au/people/sar049/papers/JMS_17.pdf

2. A unique test-bed for Relativistic Gravity Due to their strong gravitational fields and rapid motions, the double neutron star binaries exhibit large relativistic effects. PSR J0737−3039A/B promises to ensure the best tests of General relativity and other theories of gravity than ever before. Tests can be performed when a number of relativistic corrections to the Keplerian description of the orbit (the so-called post-Keplerian, hereafter PK, parameters) can be measured.
and this.....
Such tests have been possible to date in only two double neutron star systems, PSR B1913+16 (Taylor & Weisberg 1989) and PSR B1534+12 (Stairs et al. 2002). For PSR B1913+16, the relativistic periastron advance, ˙ω, the orbital decay due to gravitational wave damping, P˙ b, and the gravitational redshift/time dilation parameter, γ, have been measured, providing a total of three PK parameters. For PSR B1534+12, Shapiro delay, caused by passage of the pulses through the gravitational potential of the companion, is also visible
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Again, magnetic fields interactions most certainly would have been discussed, and researched over the time scale since the Nobel prize winning discovery was first observed, as was other effects.

 

ED,

I questioned (and still do) Paddoboy for his mindless cluttering with irrelevant copy pastes, he is not going to change. So I agree with you on this.

But what do you expect ? You raised a very valid point that in light of Vacuum Friction/magnetic Loss, the orbital decay would be there, and that may question H-T conclusion on Gravitational Waves. Fair enough, pl see my post # 71, can you quantify ? I don't think as yet, people will work it out and at the end, they will say, 97% is due to GW, 2% due to friction and 0.99% due to radiation and balance misc loss, so H-T is well in order. All unverifiable. With some nice graphs.

Paddoboy is also acting unreasonable, his claim that magnetic and friction loss has been taken care of is incorrect. No doubt magnetic aspect has been discussed but any loss on such accounts has not been considered by H - T or others for the same binary data.

 

@ The God:

Thank you for your kind interest and observations on the relevant issues. Taking them in turn:

I expect the moderators to apply the rules fairly, including in his case. No more than that. If that is done then the paddoboy problem solves itself or gets banned for disregarding the moderator finally applying the rules fairly to everyone, as the members of this science discussion site have been led to believe is supposed to be done.

It was not me that raised the "vacuum friction", it was the article in Plazma Inferno's OP post.

But yes, it was me that raised the point re possible strong 'braking' effects on observed Binary Orbital Periods of Hulse-Taylor type binary systems due to any extreme mutual magnetic field interactions between the TWO close-proximity Neutron Stars in such scenarios.

Both being NON-gravitational effects and discussion points.

It is that latter NON-gravitational/NON-plasma-mass-transfer etc mutual magnetic field interactions which I cannot find in any relevant study/paper in the context of considering it let alone quantifying it as to the possible 'braking' forces and EM radiation energy losses that may imply for such systems; which if strong enough may also significantly explain the observed Binary Period decay observed and make all gravitational waves interpretations for said losses etc redundant.

So until that remaining "elephant in the room" is properly addressed and quantified, all the graphs, apportionments and attributions and claims so far are open to further scientific challenges and scrutiny (as would be expected if applying the Scientific Method exhaustively to these observations and interpretations etc).

Yes, as I have tried to point out in his own referenced studies/papers, I cannot find any evidence in any relevant studies/papers to indicate even tangentially that the specific issue I raised had even been properly considered let alone quantified scientifically with a view to determining its impact on Binary Period decay rates observed.

Thank you again, The God, for your on science and on topic interest and comments in this matter. Best.

 

ED,

The moderators do not share the passion which you have. You are mistaken in your belief that they have understood your academic point and they are equipped to answer that rationally. It is 'no' even for the first part. I have seen Mods generally tend to go along with established. Paddoboy plays to the gallery, copy pastes of articles and papers, most of the casual and dispassionate posters who are not into critical thinking find that great, despite yours and mine exasperation. Chuckle it off.

 

No paddoboy is adhering to the simple fact that the mainstream accepted solution of the Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system orbital degradation was due primarly to gravitational radiation, as detailed in the many papers and articles.
The possibility of vaccum friction as in the OP and/or magnetic field interractions, may be possibly in addition to gravitational waves, certainly not exclusive of them.
And as per the scientific method and reasonable protocol, if you or expletive deleted, claim different, than again, please support your claim with citation/s, links and/or references.