On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:09:02 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .

Note that the temperature _does_ fall as the
radius eincreases once the sudden input of
energy has stabilised.

The maximum SHOULD occur before minimum radius...at the point of maximum
compression.

Nah, too naive, it occurs just after a huge
amount of energy is dumped into the gas by
the "light valve". See my other posts for
details.

The temperature of all layers should increase as the star contracts under
gravity.

I think you haven't previously looked at a
typical temperature curve.

I have....and it is willusory anyway...

Nope, other than time of arrival, the
temperature is a ratio of bands so isn't
affected.

The 'ratio of bands' is very sensitive to the type of radiator. Any variation
from black body could have a profound effect.


(up to time of arrival), the temperature is
based on the ratio hence the 'photon bunching'
cancels.

I think Adoppler should shift the planck curve by the observed mag change
x my
factor K....but I wouldn't bet on it.

The cause doesn't matter, the shift is less than
0.01% or 0.22nm for K band when the filter is
400nm wide - completely negligible.

You cannot assume a consant emissivity for the changing surface layer either.
The whole method is highly suspect George.


What are you trying to tell me?

Even 5.3% is far greater than VDoppler can produce.

But not greater than the temperature variation
can produce.

.but the phasing is obviously wrong...even though astronomers have come up
with
ridiculous theories to make it appear correct.

Nope, the phasing is as expected, you just aren't
considering several important aspects.

I can imagine the phasing being very different in different types of stars.
Certainly the phasing of the overtone varies considerably.




...incidentally, does the ball speed up or slow down as it sinks?

You could try it but they usually float.

not solid rubber ones.....that's what I'm talking about.

Whatever.

Is that all you can say...'whatever' when we're discussing the basis of my 'K
factor' theory..?


Your inability to appreciate orders of magnitude
is showing again, pressure effects dominate by
a large margin.

no...viscosity of water is quite temperature dependent below about 10 C
and the

Who cares, check the quote, you were comparing the
change of size as the ball sinks due to the thermal
coefficient of rubber in water which would be at near
constant temperature against the effect of the pressure
on the rubber. The latter is vastly greater.

Viscosity George...but forget it...

bulk modulus of the rubber is probably highly pressure sensitive.....

It would be non-linear, you don't get negative
radii ;

Nor can you have photons with negative lengths...

but don't
worry about it to much...it obviously involves some nasty differential
equations. ...

....but never try to make a rubber submarine. ..it might never resurface.

Hehe, don't worry Henry, I'm way ahead

No you aren't. You didn't even consider the main factor, the temperature
gradient in the water and its affect on viscosity....
We know the ball's volume will decrease nonlinearly and we can assume it
remains in temperature equilibrium with the water.


round, and there are other factors that have
an influence no doubt, such as the acoustic
resonance. Take all of it into account though
and conventional theory successfully models
the observed behaviour.

You know what I think George. Anyone can come up with a different theory
to
explain the willusion with full knowledge that they can never be proved
wrong.

Sure Henry, but try coming up with a different
version of the Planck Law that also matches
the black body radiation curve in the lab.

Well, That's just what Planck did.

Try
finding a different equation of state for
ionised hydrogen that also matches the values
measured in the lab. Try finding a different
form of Kirchoff's Law that doesn't violate
the first law of thermodynamics.

I don't see how Kirchoff's law really comes into this. Sure the emissivity of
the surface is likely to change with both temperature and density but the law
will still hold.

Scientific
"theories" aren't the "speculation" that
laymen mean when they use the term, they are
rigid mathematical equations that can be used
with confidence over regions where they are
proven by observation.



I think I should give you some time to reconsider your whole
theory.

I prefer to take the time to learn what the
models say in the first place. You need to
learn enough to stop throwing out random
comments that are already in the models.

The models are wrong.

The models at first could not get the 10 day
period right for the in-phase 'bump' no matter
how people tried to adjust them. The opacity
of He++ was rechecked and found to be wrong
and that solved the problem. The essence of a
good model is that is _cannot_ be made to match
unless the parameters are valid, unlike your
excellent match to the theme from Close
Encounters with your "Keplerian Orbits Only"
program.

.......so you believe that cepheid curves are Keplarian out of pure coincidence?

There are still a few areas where the models
aren't complete, AFAIK mainly in transverse
modes (acoustic waves going over the surface
of the star rather than radially) but that
is cutting edge stuff and my knowledge is
superficial.

The models are all based on willusory Einstiniana stuff and are wrong...

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.