Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:36:49 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

See above, the reason you didn't identify the cause
of the K band shape is because you glossed over that
key difference.

But it's wrong. The outer layer should be at minimum termperature at
maximum
radius.

There is only one layer Henry, we couldn't see
it if it wasn't opaque - Kirchoff's Law - and
it is coolest a little later because the surface
is radiating in addition to the gas effects, it
isn't fully adiabatic. That is also what is
observed.

...theories, theories.....

Do try to find out what the word means Henry,
you sound like a layman.

See above. The shift is small in comparison to
the flter widths so the temperature determination
is valid.

It's all pure speculation.

Don't be silly, it is measured directly to be
a spectral line shift of 0.01% regardlees of
cause.

ADoppler could easily account for that.

The cause is moot, the shift is 0.01% so in
the K band which is 2000nm to 2400nm, it moves
by less than 0.24nm in 400 or one part in 1600,
totally negligible.

If an oscilation DOES occur, I assume it is powered by an increase in
nuclear
activity as the core approaches minimum size.

The core size never changes, the oscillation
reaches to about 60% of the radius while the
core only extends out to about 20% (from memory).
The unstable He++ layer is at about 95% of the
radius

How do you know that George.

They measure particle cross sections in accelerators
and the rest follows.

Did a relativist tell you?

Nope, measured.

looking to do. Ritz's theory was proven wrong by
Sagnac and that was the end of it.

Ritz's theory was supposedy proved wrong by De Sitter.

Correct.

We now know why that 'proof' is wrong......unification...

The proof was correct, the theory had to be bodged
by adding speed unification in response to that proof.

I have provide an alternative explanatio of Sagnac...

No you haven't, speed unification works for an
experiment in the lab if the air is completely
still but fails for designs where the light path
rotates with the table such as in fibre gyros
and ring lasers. You have offered no other change
to the two basic equations so they still predict
a nul result from Sagnac.

Ring gyros prove SR wrong. The rays move at c+v wrt the source.

Don't waste your time Henry, a pun is only
funny the first time.

which incidentally
requires that the rays move at c+/-v wrt the source and therefore that
SR
is
WRONG.

Don't waste your time with brain-dead word games
Henry, you just make yourself look even more stupid.

It's no game George.

Of course it is Henry, you try to use the phrase
"wrt" ambiguously to mean first the difference
between two speeds and the the speed in a different
frame as a layman would. Technically it can be
considered a pun, a play on words, but it has no
real meaning.

Sure, I think the key point is that a fundamental
with harmonics is the conventional theory anyway
but there is no scope for separate layers, about
the outer 40% of the radius of the star takes
part in that oscillation.

We have the core moving in and out due to nuclear action.

Wrong the core is stable,

Have you been there George?

Have you done the calculation Henry? That is
what we call physics.

but even if it did, the
acoustics would still produce the same eigenstates.
The star is like a bell Henry, it doesn't matter
how you drive it, the modes give the same standing
patterns

Theories, theories.....easy to produce..

Sure, just measure the pressure in an organ pipe
then apply the equations to a star.

See the paper I cited, the model reproduces
not only the size of the bump but the phase
dependence and the period of 10 days when it
is in phase.

What paper?

You called it "Springer".

All springer's curves are easily simulated with BaTh.

Simulated sure, just as easily as the Close
Encounters theme, but not predicted.

temperature curve.

Not if the bands are produced predominantly at different times...as
suggested
by the 80-90 deg phase difference.

Do the sums, the difference would be at most a
fraction of a second in 35 days.

That's not right.
Once again you show your lack of undestanding of the whole BaTh principle.

The distance is around 1800LYs. Even assuming an extinction distance of
say 20
LYs, a 'c+v' of only 1.0000001 c would produce a noticeable shift in the
planck
curve.

The speed difference would be less than
0.1m/s so at 20 light years the emission
time difference would be 0.21 seconds, a
layer separation of 21mm. How much
temperature difference do you think that
would produce?

As I said Henry, do the sums, you are
hopeless at order-of-magnitude estimates.

The true velocity curve is not known.
The observed one is willusory.

Why do you keep repeating things we both know
already, I keep telling you that what you need
to do is fit your _prediction_ of the OBSERVED
velocity to the actual OBSERVED velocity.

I have.

You haven't, you have only fitted the luminosity
which is useless because you ignore radius and
temperature.

It is virtually the same as the luminosity curve.... upside down...

in: http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/Cepheid_typ.png

the Lum varies by about 2.5:1 whilst the velocity varies by 1.3E-4:1,
making K = 5E-5

No comment George?
Don't understand maths again?

Pointless, the 2.5:1 luminosity variation is
dominated by temperature and radius changes
and you have to remove those before attempting
to work out K. Also, before you can work it out,
you need to say where it goes in the luminosity
equation and then solve for K.

Well George, if the outer layer is opaque, as you claim, it should have
maximum
temperature at minimum radius or thereabouts.
It should be coolest at around max radius.

Your curves show almost the opposite and are obviously wrong..

You forget the energy is dumped into the shell
by the He++ valve as the radius decreases,
try pushing a mass with a spring and see the
time delay, and you forget that we can see the
star! That radiation keeps cooling the surface
for some time as it starts to slowly compress.
Bottom line is that the curves match the
conventional model.

Theories, theories

Yes Henry, "theories". That means equations
that are proven by observation like Planck's
Law, Kirchoff's Law, Kramer's Law, the ideal
gas equation and so on. This is _real_ physics,
not your pseudo-scientific philosophy where
you can toss in "forces unknown" or a K factor
whenever you like.


....easy when you know the answer you think you
want.......and nobody can prove you wrong.....

If it can't be proven wrong, it isn't physics.
It would be very easy to prove Planck's Law
wrong, if it were wrong, but it isn't.

We see the star's willusion George.

You might, the rest of us know it is real.

George