Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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


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.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

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.

....all stars are obiting some kind of mass centre.

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".

Yes, egg shaped...that would cause a brightness variation at double the orbit
frequency.

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.

That is true. That's why I accept the possibility.
However it doesn't make any difference to the fact that the brightness
variation of huff-puff stars conforms with BaTh.

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

George



Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


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

wrote:


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.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

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.

...all stars are obiting some kind of mass centre.

They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

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".

Yes, egg shaped...that would cause a brightness variation at double the
orbit
frequency.

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.

That is true. That's why I accept the possibility.
However it doesn't make any difference to the fact that the brightness
variation of huff-puff stars conforms with BaTh.

First you need to model them correctly. Your new program
should do that if you match the red velocity curve to the
published data. The grre curve then gives the luminosity
variation due to c+v and any extra is intrinsic. So Henry,
revisit your matches and tell me how much is c+v and how
much is intrinsic for some examples 1.5 magnitude variation

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no
theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

George

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:34:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

I'm sure there are many that have very slow orbit periods.

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.

...all stars are obiting some kind of mass centre.

They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

They orbit all kinds of objects, not just the galaxy...and other objects orbit
them.
Many orbits will involve more than one other object and will be unstable.


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".

Yes, egg shaped...that would cause a brightness variation at double the
orbit
frequency.

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.

That is true. That's why I accept the possibility.
However it doesn't make any difference to the fact that the brightness
variation of huff-puff stars conforms with BaTh.

First you need to model them correctly. Your new program
should do that if you match the red velocity curve to the
published data. The grreen curve then gives the luminosity
variation due to c+v and any extra is intrinsic. So Henry,
revisit your matches and tell me how much is c+v and how
much is intrinsic for some examples 1.5 magnitude variation

It isn't difficult to produce variations of 1.5 mag. ..but 3 is about the limit
with the BaTh before the critical distance is reached and the curves become
peaked.
There still appears to be no theory that explains any intrinsic brightness
variation of huff-puff stars.

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no
theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

George



Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:34:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

I'm sure there are many that have very slow orbit periods.

A thought just ocurred, are you perhaps seeing a bias
by looking mainly at milliseond pulsars? These are fast
because they get "spun up" by matter falling in from a
companion.

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.

...all stars are obiting some kind of mass centre.

They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

They orbit all kinds of objects, not just the galaxy...and other objects
orbit
them.
Many orbits will involve more than one other object and will be unstable.

The question remains, so what? other than in fairly tight
binaries and near misses of unbound objects, the speed and
acceleration will be too low to produce any significant
brightening.

....
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.

That is true. That's why I accept the possibility.
However it doesn't make any difference to the fact that the brightness
variation of huff-puff stars conforms with BaTh.

First you need to model them correctly. Your new program
should do that if you match the red velocity curve to the
published data. The grreen curve then gives the luminosity
variation due to c+v and any extra is intrinsic. So Henry,
revisit your matches and tell me how much is c+v and how
much is intrinsic for some examples 1.5 magnitude variation

It isn't difficult to produce variations of 1.5 mag. ..but 3 is about the
limit
with the BaTh before the critical distance is reached and the curves
become
peaked.

Try it now that your program shows the red and blue curves
separately. Take a Cepheid you think you can model with a
varation of 1.5 mag or more, match the red curve to the
velocity profile and tell me how much variation the green
curve predicts. The remainder is intrinsic.

There still appears to be no theory that explains any intrinsic brightness
variation of huff-puff stars.

This is a slightly better introduction than the bulk:

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~mhvk/AST221/pulsators.pdf

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no
theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

The theories involved would include thermodynamics, radiation
pressure, fluid dynamics and the bit that a lot of simpler
pages leave out is the importance of opacity. The stellar
structure forms a relaxation oscillator.

George

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 22:23:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:34:19 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

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.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

I'm sure there are many that have very slow orbit periods.

A thought just ocurred, are you perhaps seeing a bias
by looking mainly at milliseond pulsars? These are fast
because they get "spun up" by matter falling in from a
companion.

They are fast because the stuff that made them had some net angular momentum.



They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

They orbit all kinds of objects, not just the galaxy...and other objects
orbit
them.
Many orbits will involve more than one other object and will be unstable.

The question remains, so what? other than in fairly tight
binaries and near misses of unbound objects, the speed and
acceleration will be too low to produce any significant
brightening.

That depends entirely on distance. ...although extinction plays a part. Time
compression can occur at large distances.
I'm now of the opinion that not much unification occurs in intergalactic space
(below the WDT). Most occurs within the confines of a galaxy....particularly
near the source.....but this could vary enormously from one situation to
another.


It isn't difficult to produce variations of 1.5 mag. ..but 3 is about the
limit
with the BaTh before the critical distance is reached and the curves
become
peaked.

Try it now that your program shows the red and blue curves
separately. Take a Cepheid you think you can model with a
varation of 1.5 mag or more, match the red curve to the
velocity profile and tell me how much variation the green
curve predicts. The remainder is intrinsic.

As a result of my dropping the 'incompressible photon' theory the red curve has
now been replaced by the green one.

There still appears to be no theory that explains any intrinsic brightness
variation of huff-puff stars.

This is a slightly better introduction than the bulk:

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~mhvk/AST221/pulsators.pdf

George, have a look at their velocity and brigtness curves, about half way
down.
Do you notice something?

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no
theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

The theories involved would include thermodynamics, radiation
pressure, fluid dynamics and the bit that a lot of simpler
pages leave out is the importance of opacity. The stellar
structure forms a relaxation oscillator.

That's the theory.
Nobody will ever get close enough to have a good look at one though.

George



Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.