A star becomes a diamond?

[caplanmh]

it should be pointed out that there was no observation of the pulsar. Rather, researchers first “found” it in 200,000 Gigabytes of data obtained from three different radio telescopes,

This quote from today's TPOD is contrary to what is claimed by the discoverer herself.
The discoverer of Pulsars was Jocelyn Bell - a world-renowned Astrophysicist who explained in a TV program how she came to make the discovery by analysing the pattern on a chart recorder and spotting a recurring blip that everyone else had ignored. That the Nobel prize for the discovery went to her Boss says something about justice itself in science.

In the same program she made this interesting quote which I paraphrase and so are not the exact words but close; I have this sense that we need to picture cosmology in a completely new way, what we see is getting messier and messier. The picture you thought you had and everyone thought they had turns out to be completely wrong.

[nick c]

it should be pointed out that there was no observation of the pulsar. Rather, researchers first “found” it in 200,000 Gigabytes of data obtained from three different radio telescopes,

This quote from today's TPOD is contrary to what is claimed by the discoverer herself.
The discoverer of Pulsars was Jocelyn Bell - a world-renowned Astrophysicist who explained in a TV program how she came to make the discovery by analysing the pattern on a chart recorder and spotting a recurring blip that everyone else had ignored.

It seems to me that the TPOD quote is quite correct.
The object was not observed, ie there is no visual image of a rapidly rotating pulsar. The rapidly rotating stellar remnant was "discovered" by sorting through the data obtained from radio telescopes.
An unexpected phenomenon was detected (rapid milisecond pulsations of a star) and it was hypothesized that it was caused by the rapid rotation of a stellar remnant. The rapidly rotating stellar remnant has never been observed, it is inferred from the data. The Electric Universe offers an alternative explanation for this data that dispenses with the need for the rapid rotation and the gravitational collapse of the star.

That the Nobel prize for the discovery went to her Boss says something about justice itself in science.

That Scott and Thornhill are not getting the Nobel prize, says even more about science (or rather the politics of science.) My opinion!

[caplanmh]

nick c wrote

It seems to me that the TPOD quote is quite correct.
The object was not observed, ie there is no visual image of a rapidly rotating pulsar.

You could be correct in so far as the radio telescopes gave "confirmation" of what the chart recorder was showing. There can be no doubt that what triggered the investigation came from the chart recorder. Jocelyn Bell "herself" on TV, in explaining how she came to make the discovery; showed the chart, pointed out the blips, and explained that when she identified the repeated pattern she reported this to the Boss who - if I remember correctly - was not particularly struck that there was anything unusual to be seen and not that interested.

I do not recall now what the chart recorder was looking at. From what you say it seems likely to have been a radio telescope, but it did not take her to analyse anything else but the blips to get off first base.

The supporting radio telescope data would have been looked at afterwards but they would have known what it was they were looking for. I dare say the Boss man made a song and dance about the analysis to get his Nobel prize. But it was Jocelyn Bell's inspiration that was magnitudes senior - she did not know what it was she was looking for or if there was anything there at all.

You are right about the Nobel prize for Scott and Thornhill - I predict if they survive long enough, it will come.

[nick c]

You could be correct in so far as the radio telescopes gave "confirmation" of what the chart recorder was showing. There can be no doubt that what triggered the investigation came from the chart recorder.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding how a radio telescope works, this would not be a surprise, since I have never been near one. Aren't the chart recorders (before computers) used to print out the data gathered from a radio telescope? I am a bit confused.

[The Great Dog]

caplanmh is confused. He or she is providing information about the discovery of pulsars, in general by Jocelyn Bell (now) Burnell. That was way back in 1965. He or she is either setting up a strawman argument, or failed to actually read the TPOD.

TGD

[caplanmh]

The Great Dog writes

caplanmh is confused. He or she is providing information about the discovery of pulsars,

There is certainly some confusions here. I am criticising what is said in the TPOD -

Before discussing the nature of the planet in orbit around the pulsar, it should be pointed out that there was no observation of the pulsar. Rather, researchers first “found” it in 200,000 Gigabytes of data obtained from three different radio telescopes, analyzed by supercomputers at three different computation centers, using customized software

Exactly. As Great Dog says -"He or she is providing information about the discovery of pulsars", so is the TPOD, that is what I am criticising.

To nick c

I have seen radio telescopes but that is all. They often consist of giant dishes and are used to scan the sky for radio signals. I presume the chart recorder picks up on any signals received and there must be a relationship between the blip and where the telescope was pointing, otherwise one would be little the wiser. Picking up on a recurring blip lost amongst noise and many more is what was notable - and next day and the next the same blips were still there in the same place in the sky .....etc etc.

[The Great Dog]

The TPOD doesn't discuss the discovery of pulsars, in general.

TGD