The Pulsars
kirovs
According to this hypothesis pulsars - the neutron stars quickly
rotating about the axis. In this case I wish to offer the theory of
pulsars. According to my model of the mechanism of gravitation,
http://kirovs.110mb.com , gravitation is electrostatic, and pulsars
are stars with variable gravitation. Thus, change of a gravitational
field causes occurrence of an electromagnetic field which we observe,
accepting signals from pulsars. Thus pulsars are stars with an
exfoliating environment which comes off for a while, equal to the
period of radiation of a pulsar and comes back. At increase in the
period of radiation of a pulsar an environment separated is more.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kirovs" <mvs...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:1192058884.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
...
> Thus, change of a gravitational field causes
> occurrence of an electromagnetic field which
> we observe, accepting signals from pulsars.
Gravitation is not force. Charge accelerated by gravitation
(whether waves or dragged space) does not radiate.
So what you need to do is "packet" emission into a locale of
intense curvature, then release the curvature. How can you do
that without any discernable surface structure other than
*perfectly axially symmetric*?
David A. Smith
Craig Markwardt
kirovs <mvs...@mail.ru> writes:
Your "model" is unlikely. First of all, the radio polarization of
pulsar pulses strongly suggests that they are from a highly compact,
rotating magnetosphere. Second, as "dlzc" points out, variations in
gravity is not an emission mechanism. Finally, pulse timing is
exquisitely sensitive. Timing of binary pulsars -- and even a double
pulsar -- are precise enough to be a test of the theory of General
Relativity (of a pair of bodies with constant gravitation). There is
no evidence that gravity varies.
CM
kirovs
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc):
> Dear kirovs:
>
> "kirovs" <mvs...@mail.ru> wrote in message
> news:1192058884.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> ...
> > Thus, change of a gravitational field causes
> > occurrence of an electromagnetic field which
> > we observe, accepting signals from pulsars.
>
> David A. Smith
I do not approve, that gravitation is a force. I approve, that change
of a gravitational field creates an electromagnetic field. And we
should not classify signals accepted from a pulsar, as created by
compact object what to not make multiple copies essence, and are
created by short-term change of a gravitational field.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kirovs" <mvs...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:1192203120....@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc):
>> Dear kirovs:
>>
>> "kirovs" <mvs...@mail.ru> wrote in message
>> news:1192058884.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>> ...
>> > Thus, change of a gravitational field causes
>> > occurrence of an electromagnetic field which
>> > we observe, accepting signals from pulsars.
>>
>> Gravitation is not force...
>
>
> I do not approve, that gravitation is a force.
Nature approves that gravtiationally accelerated charges do not
radiate. Where does that leave your opinion?
When you watch a thrown ball arc up then down under the "force of
gravity", whose feet are in constant contact with a surface that
keep him from arcing just like the ball? It is *you* that is
accelerated from your orbit around the CM of the Earth...
David A. Smith
kirovs
> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc):
> Nature approves that gravtiationally accelerated charges do not radiate. ...
>
> David A. Smith
What do you understand as it? The nature approves, change of an
electrostatic field leads to creation of
an electromagnetic
field which is radiated in space. Thus I define a gravitational field
as electrostatic
Now concerning an environment.The environment is separated from a
kernel of a star for short time under action turbodinamic forces,
therefore gravitation for short term weakens, but turbodinamic force
is small, that the environment would completely be separated also it
comes back back. Gravitation is restored.
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"kirovs" <mvs...@mail.ru> wrote in message
news:1192292734.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc):
>
>> Nature approves that gravtiationally accelerated charges
>> do not radiate. ...
>
> What do you understand as it?
Enough to know you are deep at sea, with no flotation device.
You need waste no more words on me.
David A. Smith
kirovs
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc):
> Enough to know you are deep at sea, with no flotation device.
...
>
> David A. Smith
I see here some ambiguity.
It is good, that you have noticed my message. I do not know, whether
has noticed it someone?