Friction of the vacuum could slow the rotation of pulsars

Rubbish. That;'s purely a cop out on your part, and again you need to support whatever it is you are really trying to say [although I have an idea]
or answer the questions I just posed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ paddoboy:

In order:

[1] You are putting the cart before the horse there, paddoboy, and anyway it's irrelevant in this discussion. Until the NON-gravitational effects issue I raised is properly considered and quantified in context of how strong its 'braking' effects etc may be on the binary Orbital Period decay observations, any interpretations of those observations via the 'gravitational waves' hypothesis and models is up for serious scientific revisiting.

[2] The premise of the OP remains speculative unless "vacuum friction" is found to be a factor. But that is what the OP suggests testing, by using Ns rotation data analysis. So no more can be said on that matter other than opinions yet to test.

[3] You miss the point actually made by me, paddoboy. The relevant 'possibility' was never at issue. We agreed on that already. The real point is my observation that no relevant studies/papers have YET actually properly considered let scientifically quantified the effect I mentioned. Until they do that, and the 'braking' effect quantification is known and then compared to the observed 'binary orbital period decay rates and energy loss estimates, we can't really know what is the real 'main cause/process' behind the observed decay/losses of the system.

[4] The speculative OP process is at present unknown and so cannot form a basis for any assertions to 'know' either way; and the magnetic interaction aspect I raised has not yet been properly considered let alone quantified in the relevant studies/papers to date, so again, there is no basis for claiming to 'know' either way; and anyway, 'belief' is not relevant to the science/tests yet to be properly exhausted in this matter.

[5] Again, this is about NON-gravitational issues yet to be properly covered in relevant studies. Please don't bias the discussion with more gravitational waves claims and beliefs.

PS: Anyhow, paddoboy, I trust you now realize the subtle distinction between all that you have mentioned and the specific thing I actually raised and then observed its absence of treatment in relevant studies/papers. Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ paddoboy:

Paddoboy, the 'magnetosphere' and its plasma/mass-exchange etc effects are mere bagatelles, and not part of the extreme magnetic fields themselves which are there when all that mass-exchange etc has died down and the system is 'clean' and the magnetic fields the strongest. Please try to realize the difference between those transient mass-exchange etc processes, and the actual strong and persistent process I was speaking of that is currently the case with the 'clean' Hulse-Taylor NS binary system and similar cases. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Rubbish, in all respects plain rhetoric and a cop out, and as I thought.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or as I said, possibly. more rhetoric

Avoiding the question again for obvious reasons, with irrelevant rhetoric.

More avoidance of the questions for obvious reasons.

And again, another cop out and plain unsupported irrelevant rhetoric instead of yes, no or maybe.

I understand that you have avoided answering the questions as they would certainly have highlighted your alternative belief in no gravitational waves.
I'm sure those on this forum that are reading this also now recognise that fact.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I see as usual, the usual.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Plenty of sciencey words strung together to impress in another usual lengthy reply, and all totally unsupported by any citation, link and/or reference.

The Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar system was the first real evidence of gravitational waves, with the mathematical data aligning with GR gravitational wave and orbital decay.
That still stands solid after 40 years and more so since aLIGO.

 

@ paddoboy:

You may not be aware of the statisticians and survey-designer ploy of 'loading' the questions etc to try and 'force' the responses in such a way that it gives the 'desired conclusion'. You have all too obviously done just that with your list of questions. I did not want to play along with your agenda-laden questions. So I made observations which highlighted the biased and inadequate nature of the question and assumptions built into them by you in order to try and 'force' the responses in one way or another that suits your inbuilt assumptions and biases.

Maybe you would better try and actually read my answers and see the lacks in your listed questions? That would help you no end in understanding how not to be biased, irrelevant and leading in your 'survey' questions. best.

 

I wonder how much wiggling we'll get after this paper.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9608155v1.pdf

Pulsars revived by gravitational waves:

Abstract.
Binary neutron stars mergers that are expected to be the most powerful source of energy in the Universe definitely exist in nature, as is proven by the observed behavior of the Hulse-Taylor binary radio pulsar (Hulse, Taylor, 1975). Though most of energy in such events is radiated in gravitational waves, there probably exist several mechanisms giving also electromagnetic radiation. We propose a new one, involving a revival of the radio pulsar several orbital cycles before the merger.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

In point exactly as I have been theorising since the start of this game.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ paddoboy:

It might help you understand what you (obviously unsuccessfully tried to) read in your own linked references if you actually understood more "sciencey words" which is the only way to converse on the science in question. Your non-understanding may be due to an unreasonable phobia "sciencey words" used in science discussions. If you don't understand them then ask some kindly learned person to explain them to you before you deny and react unreasonably like that. Best.

 

You have another paper to invalidate with whatever babble you can conjur up.
best of luck!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here's the summary from that paper......

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9608155v1.pdf

5. Summary
Thus the pre-merger, inspiral of the neutron stars should be accompanied by all types of pulsar activity which should be displayed, according to the observed properties of Crab-like pulsars, in a wide range of electromagnetic spectrum from radio to gamma rays. The characteristic feature of this pulsar activity is that the frequency of its pulsations (ω = 2ωorb for induced dipole and ω = ωorb for other cases) should increase with time according to the gravitational radiation orbit contraction law. As the effect might be observed both as electromagnetic radiation and as gravitational radiation waveform, we present a summary of both electromagnetic luminosity L and its ratio to gravitational wave luminosity L/Lgw in the table 2.5. In this table we took x = R/Rg = 3, ωcr = p GM/R3, Rg = p 2GM/c2, Lem = 3 2 µ 2 c R4 g - the “maximal” electromagnetic luminosity. v/c is the ratio of the characteristic orbital velocity to the velocity of light.
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Game set and Match! Checkmate! That's the ball game my friends!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sure!!! But not in gobblydook fabricated made up fashion!
Best of luck and you have a good night ya here!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ paddoboy:

It is apparent that you can't read or properly understand what you referenced.

Important details you missed, paddoboy:

1) That paper is about the imminent merger stage dynamics etc, not about the long-term persistent slow-decay stage such as Hulse-Taylor etc observations relate to.

2) They a-priori assume that gravitational waves are the 'main' factors in all slow and long lasting binary decay processes; and only cursorily acknowledge 'some' less significant effect from 'other causes'.

3) They did not even attempt to consider let alone quantify the specific aspect I pointed out to you before.

Which makes that paper irrelevant to the point I raised, based on the possibility that the magnetic interaction in strong magnetic field NS binary systems may actually turn out to be the main cause of slow decay rate of binaries such as Hulse-taylor etc which have many millions of years to go before approaching imminent merger situation; and if found to be as I point out, then it makes all the above and previous assumptions ascribing 'main cause' to hypothetical gravitational waves redundant.

The situation remains, paddoboy: until the issue I raised is properly considered and quantified in context of ''braking' effect etc, then all these studies/papers and their in built assumptions and interpretations and attributions are wide open to scientific challenge. Best.

 

@ paddoboy:

As before, you miss some important details when you practice reading bias such you have demonstrated for so long now.


Has it not twigged yet that that paper is about imminent merger TERMINAL STAGE dynamics? And therefore is NOT about the Hulse-taylor type observations case to which my point relates.

Thank you anyway for your searching, paddoboy; I have done so for some time now, and as you can see, I have yet to come across one that actually considered let alone properly quantified what I pointed out re Hulse-taylor etc type scenarios (not the terminal stage, imminent merger scenario, of the latest paper you linked; thanks anyway for that, though, paddoboy). Best.

 

From two previous posts of mine re my last linked paper, which shows that [1] gravitational waves was and still is the verdict re the H/T binary Pulsar discovery and for which the Nobel prize was awarded, and [2] magnetic field interactions were 100% also considered.
The abstract shows that [1] the paper is certainly discussing binary pulsar mergers, and [2] that some energy is lost through electromagnetic radiation.
Those parts have been directly highlighted.

the following summary remarks from the same paper in the post following also totally support that same scenario:

5. Summary
Thus the pre-merger, inspiral of the neutron stars should be accompanied by all types of pulsar activity which should be displayed, according to the observed properties of Crab-like pulsars, in a wide range of electromagnetic spectrum from radio to gamma rays. The characteristic feature of this pulsar activity is that the frequency of its pulsations (ω = 2ωorb for induced dipole and ω = ωorb for other cases) should increase with time according to the gravitational radiation orbit contraction law. As the effect might be observed both as electromagnetic radiation and as gravitational radiation waveform, we present a summary of both electromagnetic luminosity L and its ratio to gravitational wave luminosity L/Lgw in the table 2.5. In this table we took x = R/Rg = 3, ωcr = p GM/R3, Rg = p 2GM/c2, Lem = 3 2 µ 2 c R4 g - the “maximal” electromagnetic luminosity. v/c is the ratio of the characteristic orbital velocity to the velocity of light.

As I have just showed and showed many times before, that is just plain wrong .

The paper is about a binary pulsar merger and the results stemming from that, and no matter how you chose to dress or undress that, it remains as is. Coupled with all the other papers linked to, it shows quite adequately, that all continhencies re the H/T system were catered for, and obviously the results stand.

The situation remains as detailed and researched in the last paper I referenced and all before that. Nothing has changed.
If you believe different, then support it with citations, links etc........
The situation stands as is with the H/T result and no amount of discussing. debating, misinterpreting etc, by any of us will change that fact. Only professionally peer reviewed evidence will and I see none of that.
As I have told you many times, [1] this is simply a science forum, and has no determination on accepted scientific theories or cosmology, and [2] you constantly fail to support your continued lengthy rhetoric with citations, links and references, even to the length I went to with the previous 6 questions, designed to reveal where you were, or were not coming from.

What you believe is your business: What evidence and links and papers you chose to ignore is also your concern.
But I stand reasonably confident that others reading this debate which has turned into somewhat of a debacle, will see this as the mainstream academia already accept, as the opinions and methodology in various papers I have submitted indicate, and as I have called it.
And we all stand by the judgement of our peers here expletive deleted, both you and I and we will never escape that.

 

[So use of word "magnetic" in ] electromagnetic radiation loss is = loss due to extreme magnetic field of pulsars..

Thats what you think ? Paddoboy. So I request you to appeal once more to your friends if that is so or not ? If I say that you are trying to solve factorization problem without understanding the multiplication, then also I will be on the mark about you. Lack of high school knowledge.

 

Hey buddy, All contingencies in all the papers and all the different aspects covered including magnetic fields interactions are never seen to invalidate, just add to any orbital degradation by gravitational radiation.
Your usual anti gravitational wave agenda prevents you from seeing this...
here's an article that will add to the validity of what I have been saying.....
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...-fields-put-the-brakes-on-millisecond-pulsars
Magnetic fields put the brakes on millisecond pulsars
"A researcher in Germany has revealed how "millisecond pulsars" – neutron stars with rotational periods ranging from 1–10 ms – slow over time. By exploring how a pulsar behaves when it stops accreting matter from a donor star, Thomas Tauris from the University of Bonn has shown quantitatively that it is the expansion of the pulsar's magnetic field that helps to slow the star's rotation. The finding may help astronomers to determine the age of radio millisecond pulsars, which is usually calculated based on the rate at which the pulsars' rotation slows".

As is obvious, the article released in 2012, despite the subject matter, does not in anyway mention anything about invalidating any gravitational wave component.
The article concerns a Professor Thomas Tauris who worked at the Parkes Telescope, 380kms west of Sydney.
Just as I'm constantly saying, the OP speculative scenario, the magnetic field possibility are all reasonable assumptions, but none invalidate in anyway, nor is there even the slightest suggestion that gravitational waves are invalidated.
Funny, that article was so easy to find, even with my poor IT skills, yet my friend expletive deleted can find nothing.

Again I invite either of you for citations, links or references to the contrary of what is accepted by mainstream and has been for 40 years, what is evidenced in all my articles, and exactly what I have been saying from the beginning.
The balls in your court. Please, no more empty unsupported rhetoric..I've heard it all.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So once again, it is obvious that magnetic field interactions were discussed in full, as their effects were well known, including by Hulse and Taylor, and all the papers written on this discovery since, of the first evidence of gravitational waves, 40 odd years ago.
.

 

As per wiki, the power loss due to gravitational radiation in H-T binary is 7.3 * 10^24 watts, which cause the orbital decay of 75 microseconds per year.

Now as ED says and it is very clear that the power loss due to any other aspect is not quantized, but even if it is of the order of as high as 10^20 watts, it will not impact the outcome. So the question is, can the space friction or magnetic interaction cause the power loss of that order ? Appears doubtful.

Paddoboy, despite your ignorance and failure to argue cogently, your faith in mainstream takes the cake away.

 

@ paddoboy:

Dear paddoboy, It is now evident that you aren't properly reading my responses to your linked info. If you had been reading you would not be kneejerking again to repetitive pre-concluded confirmation biased misunderstandings that completely miss the subtle distinction involved.

For example, way back in post #28, I distinctly covered all that and more (I now put the salient points in red):

See? I have always known such magnetic-spin-rotation effects on the pulsar timing rate; but they have not actually covered the magnetic field binary interaction between the two NS and its effects on the decay rate of the binary orbital period (not the individual pulsars' timing rate), a subtle point involving different aspects easily conflated if not careful to distinguish between the two aspects).

As I pointed out to you (which you apparently missed) in a later post#68:

So you see, paddoboy, for some time now I have been patiently trying to get you to talk apples-with-apples with me on my point, but you keep conflating the two aspects and so keep conflating oranges-and-apples aspects in reply that miss my point as explained.

Again, I already covered the spin/pulsar rate of a NS itself. That isn't the germane aspect in my point, since a NS's individual pulse rate is what it is according to that NS spin-magnetic field coupling effects which increases the one at the expense of the other or vice-versa during a NS's OWN spin-magnetic field parameter evolutions.

Now do you understand the different aspects, paddoboy? I will try to point it out more clearly for you since you seem to miss it, even when reading your own references. Here we go: There is a separate aspect entirely involved in my point; astronomers use the variations of TIME OF ARRIVAL of the pulses during the NS binary's motions around each other that varies the TIME OF ARRIVAL of whatever pulse signal (at whatever rate it is) at our telescope; and it is that TIME OF ARRIVAL data (derived from the orbital dynamics related variations in LINE OF SIGHT distance variations which delay/advance the KNOWN APPLICABLE pulse rate of a NS in the binary system) that we THEN USE to calculate the BINARY ORBITAL PERIOD for the WHOLE system of TWO Neutron Stars as in Hulse-Taylor system OVERALL, irrespective of their respective spin-magnetism parameters affecting their respective pulse rates at that stage we are observing them.

I am trying to explain to you that any variations to respective NS pulsar rate due to a NS's OWN mag-spin effects is already taken into account, because is already known as what established that 'regular clock-like' rate at any given evolutionary stage of a pulsar; and its that precise 'clock like pulses' regularity data that we exploit to detect any DELAY/ADVANCE of the signals during ORBITAL PERIOD dynamics (which PERIODICALLY during the mutual ORBITAL dance between the two NSs) affects the TIME OF ARRIVAL of whatever is the individual NS pulse rate which applies at the time of observation of ORBITAL PERIOD effects on time of said pulse time of arrival data.

Now do you see why in post #103 I again pointed out that all those OTHER individual NS parameters and processes have been taken into account, just as I have pointed out all along, and tried to explain that they are NOT what my point is about.

Dear paddoboy, you recently even confused yourself about which system STAGE observational data we were talking about; and I had to explain to you that your references re the magnetism/spin etc parameters involved in TERMINAL STAGE imminent merger dynamics, were not pertinent to my point involving stable longterm dynamics of Hulse-Taylor type scenarios.


So paddoboy, as friendly as I can be, I ask you to again review all that I have said, all that you have read in the papers you linked; and do it without confirmation bias due to emotional attachment or beliefs etc in your pre-concluded stance and expectations of inerrancy or confirmed status etc of all the related claims and assumptions. And try to separate the two different aspects as explained. Please.

Thank you paddoboy for your paper searches, much appreciated regardless. Best.