Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

The velocity profile varies for different elements.
And it's nothing to do with an analemma either way.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:40:56 +0100, OG wrote:

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

You don't seem to have the faintest idea of what we're talking about...not that
Androcles does either.

Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We say their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces moving in
and out. A brightess curve produced that way is likely to be similar to that
for a star in elliptical orbit.

The error astronomers have been making is due to the fact that, according to
BaTh, 'ADoppler shift' of spectral lines increases with distance...yet they
have been assuming this is VDoppler shift, which in fact doesn't contribute a
significant effect in BaTh.
Thus the calculated velocity curves for any star are likely to be high by many
orders of magnitude.

(ADoppler and VDoppler are terms that George and I have been using to
discriminate between the bunching of pulsar pulses due to velocity and
acceleration of the source star as it orbits)



The velocity profile varies for different elements.
And it's nothing to do with an analemma either way.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:40:56 +0100, OG wrote:

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a
Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

You don't seem to have the faintest idea of what we're talking about...not
that
Androcles does either.

Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We say
their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces
moving in
and out..

That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:01:23 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:40:56 +0100, OG wrote:

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a
Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

You don't seem to have the faintest idea of what we're talking about...not
that
Androcles does either.

Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We say
their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces
moving in
and out..

That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you poor
indoctrinated fool....


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:01:23 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:40:56 +0100, OG wrote:

Androcles wrote:

Here's a real fluke, look, a huff-puff star just happens to have a
Keplerian
orbit, found from it's velocity curve:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde.../Analemmae.htm

What a strange coincidence, eh?
Perhaps the data was faked to make it look like a Keplerian orbit.

No, you just don't seem to understand that the velocity measured is
nothing to do with movement of the star as a whole for Cepheids.

You don't seem to have the faintest idea of what we're talking
about...not
that
Androcles does either.

Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We
say
their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces
moving in
and out..

That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all
the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

You claim otherwise, justify your claim.

On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:04:19 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:01:23 +0100, "OG" wrote:



That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all
the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..

You claim otherwise, justify your claim.






"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:04:19 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:01:23 +0100, "OG"
wrote:



That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all
the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..


I'm happy for you to tell me what 'you' think.
As I said, justify your claim.

On 28 Mar, 01:50, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
....
Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We say their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces moving in
and out. A brightess curve produced that way is likely to be similar to that
for a star in elliptical orbit.

What ?????

For years you have been saying that Cepheids were plain
constant-luminosity stars and the variation was due to
c+v effects because they are in binary systems that have
not been recognised as such.

If you are now switching to say they are single stars, why
on Earth would your software be modelling binary systems
and restricting the solutions to Keplerian orbits when the
motion of the surface is due to internal pressure?

I think it is my turn to say you are getting very confused
Henry.

George

On 29 Mar 2007 10:25:26 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 28 Mar, 01:50, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
...
Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We say their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces moving in
and out. A brightess curve produced that way is likely to be similar to that
for a star in elliptical orbit.

What ?????

For years you have been saying that Cepheids were plain
constant-luminosity stars and the variation was due to
c+v effects because they are in binary systems that have
not been recognised as such.

No I changed that opinion some time ago George. I accepted that the presence of
harmonics in the brightness curves was pretty hard to explain on purely 'orbit'
grounds.
So it is quite likely that two factors are contributing to the brightness
curves of these stars. Their orbit motion and the huff-puffing of their
surfaces.



If you are now switching to say they are single stars, why
on Earth would your software be modelling binary systems
and restricting the solutions to Keplerian orbits when the
motion of the surface is due to internal pressure?

I think it is my turn to say you are getting very confused
Henry.

George

It is a fact that most 'cepheids' appear to have a companion...which means they
are in some kind of orbit.
I reckon the movement of their surfaces would feature similar radial velocities
to those of an orbit. It is distinctly possible that the huffing is linked to
the orbit period. It is also possible that the stars are in tidal lock and
distorted into some kind of dumbell shape, leading to a brightness variation as
they orbit....but that wouldn't account for the short periods of many of them.


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 29 Mar 2007 10:25:26 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 28 Mar, 01:50, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
...
Whether or not cepheids are really huff-puff stars doesn't matter. We
say their
brightness variations are due to c+v effects caused by their surfaces
moving in
and out. A brightess curve produced that way is likely to be similar to
that
for a star in elliptical orbit.

What ?????

For years you have been saying that Cepheids were plain
constant-luminosity stars and the variation was due to
c+v effects because they are in binary systems that have
not been recognised as such.

No I changed that opinion some time ago George. I accepted that the
presence of
harmonics in the brightness curves was pretty hard to explain on purely
'orbit'
grounds.
So it is quite likely that two factors are contributing to the brightness
curves of these stars. Their orbit motion and the huff-puffing of their
surfaces.

Given that you now accept the huff-puff nature, you
need to reconsider your justification for saying
that Cepheids that are currently thought of as
isolated might actually be part of a binary.

If you are now switching to say they are single stars, why
on Earth would your software be modelling binary systems
and restricting the solutions to Keplerian orbits when the
motion of the surface is due to internal pressure?

I think it is my turn to say you are getting very confused
Henry.

It is a fact that most 'cepheids' appear to have a companion...

It is a fact that something around half of _all_ stars
are in binary systems so there is no reason why Cepheids
should be an exception.

which means they
are in some kind of orbit.
I reckon the movement of their surfaces would feature similar radial
velocities
to those of an orbit. It is distinctly possible that the huffing is linked
to
the orbit period. It is also possible that the stars are in tidal lock ..

It is certainly possible, especially for close binaries,
but less likely for those with greater separations.

and
distorted into some kind of dumbell shape,

No, each would be more like an egg shape. Look up "Roche Lobe".

leading to a brightness variation as
they orbit....but that wouldn't account for the short periods of many of
them.

It wouldn't account for any where the period of the Cepheid
differs from the orbital period, nor does it account for those
that are not in binary systems.

George