"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:44:40 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:22:33 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
...
There is a time diffrence in average emission of light in the two
bands.
K maximum is about 90 behind the V max. What does that suggest?

We have covered this several times but I'll summarise,
in the K band the variation of surface brightness due
to temperature is small (which we know from Planck's
Law) so the luminosity varies nearly as the square of
the interferometric radius measured by ESO.

You don't know that at all. That's just an assumption made to try to
match
the
willusions.

Of course I know, it falls out directly from the Planck
curve. Just calculate the variation you will get for the
measured temperature variation. The bandwidth of K band
is from 2000nm to 2400nm so you can try doing the sums
yourself. That gives you the variation of surface
brightness.

The variation of angular diameter is also as measured,
no assumption there. We don't even need to know the
distance to the star because the area varies in
proportion to the square of the angular size and it
is a simple fact that the luminosity divided by the
surface brightness matches the square of the angular
radius.

George, I wouldn't have any faith in equations that use willusory data.

brightness = luminosity / area

That is true by definition.

Neither
of those is subject to "willusion" effects other than
the shift of the time of arrival (and even that is
debatable for the interferometric radius).

George, you can't believe any of it.

Of course I do, these measurements are simple in
principle though technically challenging so why
shouldn't I. You have had numerous opportunities
to say why they might not be valid but all you do
is make facile comments like that and stall for
time.

Don't YOU talk about stalling for time.
That's obviosly your whole approach...."if youl can't beat 'em, at least
waste
as much of their time as you can"....

So when are you going to stop stalling and match
the velocity curve of L Car? Or are you going to
try the same old trick of moaning that we don't
know the true velocity when you know perfectly
well that I mean you should match the observed
value by changing the true parameters you input
to the program? You've used that at least three
times now.

Put the measured temperature and measured radius changes
together and the luminosity is fully explained leaving
no need for an ADoppler component.

Hahahaha! How many asumptions did you have to make to arrive at the
answer
you
wanted george?

Only one fairly basic assumption which can be
confirmed by multi-band photometry. Can you
guess what it is? Here's your chance to show
that you have learned some astronomy.

Yes I'm quite aware of that relationship George....effectively, size,
luminosity and distance are related for stars of similar temperature.

Nope. The assumption is "extinction" in the
correct astronomical sense. Dust in the ISM
scatters different wavelengths by different
amounts. Multi-band photometry can separate
the Planck curve from the dust reddening but
two band work needs to assume a calibration
curve.

Take the derivative of the radius curve and you get the
velocity curve showing that it is VDoppler, not ADoppler.

More speculation....

Nope, schoolboy calculus, though I guess that
might be the black arts to you based on your
past understanding. Take the radius curve and
differentiate once to get velocity. Differentiate
again to get the acceleration. Now shift the
time of arrival of the velocity and acceleration
curves to account for "c+v" influenced travel
time and see which one matches. The velocity
is best but not good if you assume a large speed
equalisation distance, and it gets closer as you
reduce that parameter. The acceleration curve is
hopeless no matter what.

I hve told you before, it is possible to get similarly shaped curves and
phasing with both A and V doppler.

Right, and I have told you that using the radius
curve let's you distinguish them.

The only difference is that VDoppler can't produce anything like the
observed
magnitude changes or curve shapes in general.

It doesn't need to, the radius and temperature
are enough on their own. Match the velocity
curve with both VDoppler and then ADoppler
and see which matches the radius, you are just
stalling again.

it certainly throws out YOUR theory.

No, conventional theory fits all the curves. It throws
out the idea that the velocity curve has any ADoppler
because the phase would be wrong, and it explains all of
the observed luminosity variation without any need for
an ADoppler contribution either so the evidence supports
conventional, not ballistic theory.

Explain the phasing of the OBSERVED temperature curve, George.

Just before minimum radius, the increasing pressure
He++ "light valve" becomes transparent and dumps a
heap of energy into the upper layers causing the
temperature to rise rapidly after which it cools.
The radiation pressure turns the mass of the gas
around and starts it accelerating outward and the
acoustic resonance 'tunes' the relaxation oscillator.
The curves are what is expected.

The theory is simply designed to match the willusion. There is no reason
to
accept any of it.

Since the "willusion" doesn't exist if ADoppler
doesn't exist, the models are right for ballistic
theory as well, and if you stop stalling and do
the match I suggested, you will find out there
is no ADoppler present. You can make whatever
excuses you like (spheres, radiation pressure,
'forces unknown') but the fact remains that no
observed ADoppler means the models are robust.

George