"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:17:24 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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

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

Sure, both factors operate.

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.

Indeed and care must be taken for that reason
especially with local factors like absorption
by water and oxygen in the K band. These
effects are well known though, nobody ignores
them.

....but everybody seems to ignore the most critical factor..that of
variable
light speed....

People take the frequency dependence of the
refractive index into account where it has
an effect, e.g. in pulsar dispersion.

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 emissivity is 100% at the bottom of the
layer Henry, Kirchoff's law requires that.

Not if its temperature is continually changing.

Yes Henry, Kirchoff's law requires it.

Nor can you have photons with negative lengths...

That's your 'wave equation' of course....

No that's YOUR 'wave model', you have no wave equation.

Photons are particles.

Right, but you don't have an equation for that either.

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.

The sea's temperature changes only slightly with
depth after the first few tens of metres, and the
effect on the ball will be minimal. Viscosity
has no effect at all on the volume of the ball.

I know that George.

Thank goodness.

I'm talking about the rate of fall, ...

No, you were talking about the ball being compressed
by pressure as an analogy for a photon being squeezed
by the differential velocity due to acceleration at
the time of emission, or some such rubbish, you never
mentioned rate of fall.

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.

Since the gas is a black body radiator, it must
also be a perfect absorber. As the density rises,
it becomes completely opaque which is why you
cannot see through to a second layer.

they are big assumptions...

Nope, they are results confirmed by lab tests.

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?

No, I believe you have added so many adjustable
parameters in your program that you can fit any
curve, Keplerian or not.

George, the well known cepheid curve is Keplerian...whether you like it or
not...

Nope, but your program can produce almost any curve,
Keplerian or not so that's not a problem for you.

George