Re: That Great Pulsar Timing Flame War

Article View: sci.astro

Article #3792

#3792

From: MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:47

27 lines
1395 bytes

Tom Van Flandern (metares@well.sf.ca.us) wrote:
: 
: > [ST] I believe the error in Yu is that statement 3.1 (momentum is
: > conserved) does not imply 3.2 (reduced quadrupole moment vanishes).
: 
:      This is right at the heart of Yu's argument.  Your statement is not
: obvious.  Could you please elaborate carefully, since a lot hinges on this
: matter.
:

    I agree. Buchdahl, in his seventeen simple
    lectures on GR (1982) cites exactly the same
    argument to cast doubt on the binary pulsar
    radiation. Besides that, he lists 3 or 4 more
    quite pursuasive doubts.

    Can anybody tell me whether any of these doubts
    have been removed by more recent work? And if so,
    which ones are they?

    (I hope I didn't miss replies on previous 
    `Buchdahl' postings; I haven't read the net lately).

    marc.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <1993Jan12.104752.17377@nuscc.nus.sg>

Path:

arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!newsserver.technet.sg!nuscc!nusunix2.nus.sg!scip2124

References: <C0p70n.15z@well.sf.ca.us>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Newsgroups: sci.astro,sci.physics
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!newsserver.technet.sg!nuscc!nusunix2.nus.sg!scip2124
From: scip2124@nusunix1.nus.sg (MARC PAUL JOREF VAN LOO)
Subject: Re: That Great Pulsar Timing Flame War
Message-ID: <1993Jan12.104752.17377@nuscc.nus.sg>
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <C0p70n.15z@well.sf.ca.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 10:47:52 GMT
Lines: 27

Reply to Parent Message