Changes

This particular binary pulsar, PSR B1913+16 was discovered by [[Russell Alan Hulse]] and [[Joseph Hooton Taylor, Jr.]], of [[Princeton University]]. They were later awarded the 1993 [[Nobel Prize]] in Physics based on a claim in the abstract of their paper that this binary pulsar confirms the [[Theory of General Relativity]] due to its loss in energy over time, which Hulse and Taylor attributed to the radiation of [[gravitational waves]] under the [[Theory of General Relativity]]. The claims in the body of the paper itself are more restrained, simply showing showed that assumptions could be made about the physician physical attributes of the system (including assuming what their masses are, periastron, angular momentum, etc.) in order to fit the data to the theory. The "fit" to General Relativity was about 0.2%.:Fitting observed data to match a theory based on those data is a common practice. [[Kepler's laws of planetary motion]] don't say what the orbit of Mars is. They make general statements about what the orbits have to look like. Kepler took observational data and fit them into his laws by setting the appropriate values for major and minor axes, perihelion point, etc. If the laws had been incorrect (perhaps because the gravitational field were inverse cube instead of inverse square) he would not have been able to fit the observed orbital behavior. Hulse and Taylor similarly took the rather scant data about pulsar period fluctuation and fit it to physical data about the pulsars and their orbits. They could only "see" one of the two pulsars; the pulsation beam of the other one did not strike Earth.

In 2004, Professor Taylor coThe observations were made in the mid-authored a paper reviewing new data from this binary pulsar1970's. By this As time went by, the data diverged from precession of the predictions orbiting pulsars moved the beam out of the [[Theory Earth's line of General Relativity]], and a "galactic acceleration term" was introduced to fit the data to the theorysight. However, a perfect fit was not possible for any set of assumptions for the physical attributes of the systemThe signals became fainter, and a minimum of 0.2% in error was introducedwere nearly gone by 2003. If (It had been a serendipitous occurrence that the theory signals were correct, there should be no error because assumptions are made about the physical attributes detectable in order to fit the data to the theoryfirst place.)

Perhaps observing In 2004, Professor Taylor co-authored a widening divergence between observation paper reviewing new data from this binary pulsar, and theorypointing out the loss of signal. They also speculated on factors that could explain the 0.2% discrepancy. The calculations required more detailed knowledge of "galactic constants" (size and shape of the galaxy, the authors declared Earth's actual location within it, the pulsars' distance, the pulsars' proper motion, etc.) than had been available. They noted that , since the pulsars had swung out of view by that time, "it seems unlikely that this test of relativistic gravity will be improved significantly."<ref>J. M. Weisberg and J. H. Taylor, ''[http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0407/0407149v1.pdf Relativistic Binary Pulsar B1913+16: Thirty Years of Observations and Analysis]'' (July 7, 2004).</ref>

No data observed after 2003 Further observations of this sort will have been published about this to wait until another binary pulsar, which suggests that the data have diverged even further from the predictions of the [[General Theory of Relativity]]. It would be easy to post the data on the internet for the public to pair swings into view and draw their own conclusions.