Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:14:39 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
sorOn Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:17:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

The 'nonsensical' theory is Planck's black body radiation law.
Which is so well confirmed that not even you will question it.
Or do you? :-)
It is reasonably well confirmed.
It is extremely well confirmed.
So why did you call it nonsensical?

It is 100% confirmed when a 'black body' is defined as an emitter that obeys
Planck's curve.

Is that the source of your confusion?

Impressive what you don't know, Henri. :-)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0295200.htm
"A theoretically perfect absorber of all incident radiation."

A practical way to make a near perfect black 'body' is to
have a cavity with a hole in it. The hole will 'absorb'
all the radiation that hits it, and will thus be black
according to the definition above.

If you heat the inside of the cavity (oven), the hole will
radiate 'black body radiation'.
http://rocinante.colorado.edu/~pja/a.../lecture06.pdf
This is the traditional way of producing BB radiation in a lab.

The spectrum of this radiation is exactly as predicted by Planck's law.

What isn't confirmed is whether or not the
average cepheid has a black body spectrum. Nor has it been confirmed that its
spectrum would remain black body if it went 'huff puff' all day long.
As my calculation shows, the observed light curves in K and V from l Carinae
are consistent with a black body spectrum.

....that might be true if the observations wer made close up...but the datat
you have is only Willusory.

What we have is the measured light curve in K and V, the measured
radius variation and the measured temperature variation.
All the measured data are consistent, the light curves in K
and V are exactly as they should be according to conventional theory.

A coincidence? :-)

What you have is a theory which is utterly unable to predict
the measured data. It predicts 'wilusions' which are not observed.

But since you find the verbal description above unconvincing,
(you didn't understand it, did you?) let's do the calculation properly.

As the primary, measured data, I will use the temperature in fig. 4.3 in:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf
That's a bloody PhD thesis....Do you really think a Phd student is going to
stand up and announce that the whole of astronomy is bull**** because it is
based on all starlight traveling to little planet Earth at precisely speed 'c'?
Of course not Tussellad...
In other words, you won't expect a Phd student to be a crank. :-)

...no, just someone who does what his supervisor tells him to do...and his
supervisor is bound to be an inbred member of the incestuous physics
establishment that worships the Einstein god.

You have to utterly ignorant of physics and astronomy to be open minded
enough to claim that "the whole of astronomy is bull****", right? :-)

I'm sorry Paul...but ignoring Willusions is on par with assuming everything we
currently see in the cosmos is happening right this instant.
For some obscure reason, the obvious is often very hard to identify.....

Your desperate claim that we cannot measure the temperature of stars
by analysing the absorption lines is not very convincing.


...but obviously, the 'obvious' hasn't reached Norway yet.

All the information used there is willusory...the paper is full of speculative
remarks made by a poor bugger who obviously trying to match one lot of nonsense
with more nonsense...

....so you are already on the wrong track....
Hardly a convincing argumentation for why the temperature curve
in fig. 4.3 must be wrong. :-)

And note one very important issue:
The temperature is derived from the absorption lines, and NOT
from the black body spectrum, which would have made my calculations
somewhat circular.

...that's not what I read.
Most of the lines are emission....lots of Fe, etc.,...
Anyway it probably makes little difference.

Your ignorance shows again, Henri.
All the 'spectral lines' in tab 4.1 are absorption lines.

and the radius curve in fig 3 in:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf
Interferometry relies on all starlight moving at constant c wrt Earth.
Since that is not true, the technique can best be regarded as highly suspect.
The published cuvre is lousy anyway...nothing like a best fit....
Don't be such a blatant idiot, Henri.
If the BaTh predicts that it is possible to use a telescope
to measure the angular distance between two stars, then it also predicts
that it is possible to use an interferometer to measure the angular
diameter of a star. This is simple geometry, Henri. The geometry
is the same in both cases, and it doesn't matter what the speed
of light is.

Not so Paul. If the star is spinning..as it no doubt is..light from each side
will move at diffferent speeds towards earth..causing a willusory phase
difference.

This is mindless babble, Henri.
The "phase difference of light from different sides of the star"
is a meaningless concept - there is no such thing!
To compare the 'phase' of the light (noise!)
from two uncorrelated noise sources is meaningless!
What the hell should you compare?
And why do you think it is done anywhere?

Anyway, how can interferometry work at all?

It is indeed apparent that you don't understand how!

It requires coherent light and a split beam....or rather a split photon.....
Even you wouldn't claim that the same photon is emitted from both sides of the
star.

Should I laugh or should I cry?
I think I will laugh - a resigned laugh - this idiot is beyond reason.

Read my other posting.

Either the BaTh predicts that light behaves according
to the optical laws we know apply, or it doesn't.
And you are not insisting that it doesn't, are you? :-)
If you do, the very fact that telescopes work falsifies the BaTh.

Interferometry apparently detects some kind of change....but it sure ain't the
star's radius....


The fit is so good that one could think I have cheated.
But I haven't. You can check the calculations yourself,
if you don't believe me.
The fit is good simply because Planck's black body radiation law
is correct, and a Cepheid is what it is known to be - a pulsating star.
It is highly possible that some stars DO pulsate.
I take this remark as an admission that you accept
that l Carinae is a pulsating star, and the reason for
why the K and V light curves are as they are simply is
Planck's law.

The two curves can be produced using BaTh. They differ only in eccentricity and
yaw angle..as well as phase.

So why did you call this explanation 'nonsensical'?

Because it is all based on willusroy data..

The fact that their
brigthness curves match those of stars in an elliptical orbit of e ~ 0.15-.25
and yaw angle -50-70 is purely coincidental.

Do you still find Planck's blackbody radiation law nonsensical, Henri?
Planck's law was empirically derived for what is assumed to be a perfect black
body.
Planck's law can be derived from the assumption (postulate) that
the energy of the oscillators in the radiating body is quantized.

Stars vary considerably and not many fit that curve well at all.
Nonsense.
All stellar spectra are black body spectra with absorption and
emission lines due to the fact that the black body radiation
from the stellar photosphere has to go through the higher layers
of the stellar atmosphere.

...Now even your colleagues will correct you on that one Paul..

Henri, zip your mouth, your ignorance shows.

The spectrum is given primarily by the surface temperature of
the star, and varies remarkably little between stars with equal
temperatures.

...but not variables....

- but not variables - what?

We can sum it up thus:
The K and V light curves from l Carinae are exactly as
Planck's law predicts them to be if the star is
a pulsating star with temperature curve and diameter curve
as measured.

dream on....

...is what you say when you don't know what to say, right?

Whether you like it or not, these are indisputable FACTS:
The K and V light curves from l Carinae are exactly as
Planck's law predicts them to be if the star is
a pulsating star with temperature curve and diameter curve
as measured.

If you still haven't fathomed that, you better read again
my original posting where I prove the above to be facts.

As the primary, measured data, I will use the temperature in fig. 4.3 in:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf
and the radius curve in fig 3 in:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The question is:
What will the K (2.2u) and V (0.5u) light curves be
according to Planck's blackbody radiation law?

The result is shown in the table below. Here a
Int = the surface radiation intensity relative to the intensity at phase 0.
Lum = the luminosity (intensity*area) relative to the luminosity at phase 0.
Mag = the magnitude relative to the magnitude at phase 0.

The Intensity is calculated from Planck's black body radiation law.
Planck(T,lambda). (Look it up if you don't know it.)
K Int = Planck(T,2.2u)/Planck(5600,2.2u)
V int = Planck(T,0.5u)/Planck(5600,0.5u)

Phase: 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Temp: 5600 5550 5250 5050 4950 4900 4850 4950 5050 5400
Radius: 2.78 2.88 3.10 3.20 3.20 3.15 3.08 2.95 2.77 2.62
Area: 1.00 1.07 1.24 1.32 1.32 1.28 1.23 1.13 0.99 0.89
K Int: 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.94
K lum: 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.11 1.07 1.02 0.95 0.91 0.83 0.83
K mag: 0.00 -0.06 -0.12 -0.11 -0.07 -0.02 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.20
V Int: 1.00 0.95 0.71 0.57 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.57 0.83
V lum: 1.00 1.02 0.88 0.76 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.73
V mag: 0.00 -0.03 0.14 0.31 0.43 0.53 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.34

Compare K mag and V mag to the curves in fig.1 in
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The fit is so good that one could think I have cheated.
But I haven't. You can check the calculations yourself,
if you don't believe me.
The fit is good simply because Planck's black body radiation law
is correct, and a Cepheid is what it is known to be - a pulsating star.



Paul