Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

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

No doubt some star DO go 'huff-puff' and change temperature as they do. I
have
never argued otherwise,..... even though there is no decent theory linking
expansion with temperature change.

ROFL! Henry, that's a classic. Can I take it you
have never pumped up a bicycle tyre then :-)))))

That you think you can get away with claiming a
degree in physics and still come out with crap
like that is quite astonishing.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:27:16 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:15:49 -0700, George Dishman

So now you have two different sets of "orbital
parameters" for the same single star.

I pointed that out already...interesting isn't it?

Not really, Cepheids expand and contract and what
happens to a gas when it expands Henry? Does that
give you a hint as to why the curves at different
wavelengths might have different shapes?

Yes, I have given my opinion on that.

And a clueless lot of crap it was. The answer is
simple, when a gas expands, it cools. The surface
temperature changes.

George, has your memory gone a bit funny? The aim was to prove to you
that
the
curve shapes can be produced with ADoppler alone. I have done that...

No you haven't, it is your memory that is defective.
All you have shown is that your program can produce
intersting shapes - it is equally good at emulating
a flute!

You wont get anywhere by quoting Jerry's nonsense, George.

It was Jeff's nonsense, and you fell for it beautifully.

I explained below what you need to do to demonstrate
whether the luminosity is due to ADoppler or VDoppler:

The plain fact is, my program can produce a very specific range of curves.
It
so happens that most star curves fit into that range.

So do flutes and temperature changes.

What would a normal
person conclude from that, George?

That you have so many adjustable parameters, your
program can curve-fit pretty much anything.

What you have to do is fit the velocity curve
of your program to the velocity curve of the
star, then if you still have some free variables
you can adjust, try to match the radius curve
of the star with the radius curve given by your
program and once you have done that, we can see
whether the measured luminosity matches your
predicted luminosity better with a high or low
value for distance.

George, nobody knows the true velocity curve of the star....nor the
radius
curve.

That's what your program is supposed to do - see
above for instructions.

It does, within limits.

Show everyone then.

I have produced figures that wil assist in determining these quantities.

A low value means your
program will predict luminosity mainly due to
VDoppler while a large distance means ADoppler
will dominate. Only then can you find out which
is the cause.

George, I have to define a new quantity, 'VID', which is the product of
(velocity x inclination x distance). That is all I can produce with my
simulation because these three factors are all complimentary.

No, velocity and the sine of the inclination should
be related as you describe but the distance is not,
it alters the phase of the luminosity relative to
the radius and velocity curves.

Once again you are assuming that the true velocity curve can be obtained
from
the VDoppler spectral willusion.

I make no such assumption, I am simply noting that
the distance appears in the formula for ADoppler
but not for VDoppler hence it causes a phase shift.
To measure the actual phase, you need some separate
reference as I have told you many times.

It cannot.

However it is fair to assume that the distance is the same for the
averaged V
and K source layers.

Don't worry about luminosity at all to start with,
match the _unique_ velocity curve only and see if
you get the right radius curve. You might be able
to get a reasonable fit to both. Luminosity comes
later.

How many times do I have to repeat the fact that the OBSERVED cepheid
velocity
curves should be similar to the brightness curves...with some minor phase
and
shape diferences.

Sure, and speeds of 30km/s should produce luminosity
variations of only 0.002 mag, but you also insisted
that spectral lines were _not_ affected by acceleration
and introduced your stupid unphysical "K" factor as an
ad hoc parameter. In that case the velocity curve _does_
show the true speed though you still get a distortion of
the time of arrival.

All that is irrelevant though because balllistic effect
variations affect all bands equally while the K and V
band difference tell us that the surface temperature is
changing.

The fact that the two curves require different yaw and eccentricity
values
can
tell us quite a lot.
This star is probably a huff puff...although there arepossibly other
explanations.
The two spectral bands come on average from different layers, each
having
a
different 'springyness' (suggested by the different eccentricities). One
layer
lags somewhat beind the other (producing the apparent 'yaw angle
difference')

Opacity variations are yet another tricky aspect,
but you don't need to worry about that at all,
just fit the velocity curve and show me what your
program gives. Then we can talk sensibly.

Producing velocity curves from different layers is a bit difficult.

You only have one layer to worry about, the
photosphere is only a few hundred km thick by
the time it is totally opaque.

However I
have given you the required yaw angles and eccentricities required to
simulate
these two so all you have to do is plot them.

No thanks, I tried a couple of days ago and got yet
another 'subscript out of bounds' error so I'll leave
that to you.

My program does it for you.
......but remember, these are the REAL not the OBSERVED curves.

Here's what you need to do again:

1) match the observed velocity curve with your
predicted version by altering the 'orbital'
parameters of the true motion. It isn't
actually an orbit but it is a versatile
arbitrary curve generator.

2) for your chosen parameters, show three plots:
a) predicted _observed_ velocity
b) predicted _true_ radial distance
c) predicted _observed_ luminosity

Note the radius is true, not observed because we
measure the angular width and the edges move
perpendicular to the line of sight so c+v doesn't
apply. That's would not be the case for a binary
system.

If you want to claim you can match a Cepheid, that's
what it takes.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:55:02 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:
Henry replied to George:

[I wrote:]

... It's not worth doing though because
you would just revert to your dragged aether
model anyway.

It isn't a dragged aether model.
....
My spheres remain 'centred on' the stars....maybe lagging behind in phase
a
little. I would call that being dragged as in the classical sense. (eg.,
the
MMX apparatus 'dragging' aether with it)

Precisely what I meant.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:53:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 05:39:48 -0700, George Dishman


In the examples so far, we saw no ADoppler so if
spheres existed, they had to be motionless.

I wish you wouldn't repeat this nonsense over and over, George. Are you
trying
to convince yourself that it's true.

You agreed it Henry, there is no detectable ADoppler
for J1909-3744 or for the contacts binaries we looked
at. You still have to model the Cepheids correctly
before we can discuss that, match the velocity curve
for L Car and we will see.

The observed curve should be something like its brightness curve upside
down.

For the band-limited in the paper, it is dominated
by the temperature changes.

The VDoppler contribution is generally negligible in all but pulsars and
contact binaries. ...

Exactly, you even admit what I said is true .

I have always made that point clear.... I even explained why it happens.

Fine, so do say I'm "repeat[ing] this nonsense over
and over" when you have always said the same.

Oh dear, Henry I am assuming you can do algebra at
secondary school level. Time is not shown explicitly
because you are supposed to realise that velocity v,
and acceleration are both functions of time. I could
write v(t) instead of just v but you should be aware
of that convention anyway.

No George, where is brightness vs TIME.

The graphs are versus phase where

phase = (time - ref)/period

Distance does appear in the equations. From below:

f'/f = c(c+v)/(c^2-da)

That would be the 'frequency' shift of a single photon on arrival,

No, you misunderstand, f' and f are the rates at
which photons are emitted and received, not the
frequencies of the photons themselves. If I say
that the units would be photons per second rather
than cycles per second, does that help?

No. You are evading the question.

The question was "where is brightness vs TIME".
By brightness, I assume you mean luminosity as
you get that wrong all the time. The answer is
that it is the equation I have been posting
throughout.

You don't have any kind of model.

I am using your ballistic theory, I don't need a
model.

Eccentricity etc. don't appear because the equations
are universal, they apply to any source motion
regardless of how it is produced, so orbital motion,
surface expansion of a Cepheid and your 'laser in a
wheel' are all covered. In each case you need to
work out the functions v(t) and a(t) from the
dynamics.

What do you think a computer is for.

You don't even follow the conversation, do you.

I'm way ahead of you..

No, you till don't understand schoolboy algebra.
Sometimes when I write just a letter for a variable,
it is imlied that it is a function of time, just like
a function in Basic.

Let me give you another example, you could
attach a mirror to a loudspeaker cone and shine a
laser on it. The shift of the reflected light would
also be described by my equations, but you would need
to look at the waveform of audio to work out the
velocity and accelerations involved.

George, you are missing the point.
You are not relating your equations to observed brightness variation vs
time.

I assumed you had knowledge of schoolboy maths
Henry, f' and f are functions of time.

To produce brightness curves you have to plot arrival photon density
versus
time ..

Not density Henry, I don't care how many photons
per cc there are. It is photon _rate_ that matters.
That's what the above equations do.

.. after including the additional VDoppler energy increase in each photon.

Nope, you don't include that because CCD's count
photons, they cannot measure their energy.

Nope, I don't calculate that factor at all, my
equations relate _only_ to the 'photon bunching'
due to the velocity and acceleration.

...source acceleration only. Not velocity.

Oh dear, what do you think the "v" in the equation
represents?

It is supposed to cover the VDoppler.

Yes Henry, "v" stands for "velocity" and the
"V" on the front of "VDoppler" also stands
for "velocity" so the equation _does_ include
the VDoppler contribution.

You've been working on your program for many
years, I worked out the equations in a few
minutes. You challenged nme to give you a
shortcut for calculating the arrival time
because you thought it was impossible so
I timed how long it took, just under four
minutes to give you an analytic function.

You are yet to produce ONE brightness curve.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/fit_lum.png

Your theory is a very bad fit Henry.

Your VDoppler curve is a joke. You can't produce anything like the
observed
magnitude variations with VDoppler, George.

Of course not Henry, they are due to temperature
changes.

..and you are using the willusory
spectral data to produce the velocity curve.

ADoppler produces both the velocity and brighness curves.

But then you have to integrate twice to get the
radius curve - try it henry, it doesn't fit, and
anyway you keep telling me K1 which means there
is no ADoppler in the spectral line shift so the
speeds have the correct values, they are just
skewed by the effect of c+v on time of arrival.

I prefer to train my computer to do the work in seconds.

You were talking about this 10 years ago Henry
and you still don't produce the right numbers.

I can match just about any curve George.

Match L Car's velocity curve then Henry, then we
will make some progress.

Match L Car's magnitude change George....using your willusion.

You are the one claiming to be able to match Cepheid
curves Henry, I'm calling your bluff, you cannot match
both the radius curve and velocity curve if you assume
the velocity curve is ADoppler as the theory requires.

What is more, star curves nearly ALL seem to fit into the very narrow
range
predicted by the BaTh. Aren't you impressed by that?

OF course not, all you have done is write a curve
fitting program that can match anything from a flute
snippet to band limited thermal radiation and prove
both are "Keplerian orbits" :-)

Bull****. It can only match very specific shapes...and nearly all star
curves
fit into its range.

And so do flute solos and temperature profiles :-)

If you call this a fit:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/fit_lum.png

I guess you could be impressed, I'm not.

You are relying on a willusion to produce another willusion.

Show me your match if you think you can do better.
Forget the luminosity, it is temperature dominated
but you should be able to match the radius and
velocity curves with a single fit and then predict
how much the ballistic effects alter the luminosity.

George

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:27:46 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 22:27:16 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

I pointed that out already...interesting isn't it?

Not really, Cepheids expand and contract and what
happens to a gas when it expands Henry? Does that
give you a hint as to why the curves at different
wavelengths might have different shapes?

Yes, I have given my opinion on that.

And a clueless lot of crap it was. The answer is
simple, when a gas expands, it cools. The surface
temperature changes.

Many other possibilities appear when you accept the BaTh.
Your problem is that you are perpetually trying to associate all the brightness
variation with instrinsic factors when, in many cases, much or even ALL the
variation is due to c+v.

George, has your memory gone a bit funny? The aim was to prove to you
that
the
curve shapes can be produced with ADoppler alone. I have done that...

No you haven't, it is your memory that is defective.
All you have shown is that your program can produce
intersting shapes - it is equally good at emulating
a flute!

You wont get anywhere by quoting Jerry's nonsense, George.

It was Jeff's nonsense, and you fell for it beautifully.

Don't lie George.

I explained below what you need to do to demonstrate
whether the luminosity is due to ADoppler or VDoppler:

The plain fact is, my program can produce a very specific range of curves.
It
so happens that most star curves fit into that range.

So do flutes and temperature changes.

.......and you claim to know something about Fourier analysis.....

What would a normal
person conclude from that, George?

That you have so many adjustable parameters, your
program can curve-fit pretty much anything.

That's where you are wrong George. Sure, there are many curves that are close
to sine waves..so are many brightness curves. That's not a fault in my program.
However the plain fact is, most star curves DO fit into the narrow range that
the BaTh can produce.

What you have to do is fit the velocity curve
of your program to the velocity curve of the
star, then if you still have some free variables
you can adjust, try to match the radius curve
of the star with the radius curve given by your
program and once you have done that, we can see
whether the measured luminosity matches your
predicted luminosity better with a high or low
value for distance.

George, nobody knows the true velocity curve of the star....nor the
radius
curve.

That's what your program is supposed to do - see
above for instructions.

It does, within limits.

Show everyone then.

The steamlined version of my program is almost complete. It will be on the
website for all to use very soon.


No, velocity and the sine of the inclination should
be related as you describe but the distance is not,
it alters the phase of the luminosity relative to
the radius and velocity curves.

Once again you are assuming that the true velocity curve can be obtained
from
the VDoppler spectral willusion.

I make no such assumption, I am simply noting that
the distance appears in the formula for ADoppler
but not for VDoppler hence it causes a phase shift.
To measure the actual phase, you need some separate
reference as I have told you many times.

George, I will let the computer work it out.

How many times do I have to repeat the fact that the OBSERVED cepheid
velocity
curves should be similar to the brightness curves...with some minor phase
and
shape diferences.

Sure, and speeds of 30km/s should produce luminosity
variations of only 0.002 mag, but you also insisted
that spectral lines were _not_ affected by acceleration
and introduced your stupid unphysical "K" factor as an
ad hoc parameter. In that case the velocity curve _does_
show the true speed though you still get a distortion of
the time of arrival.

Geez, you're really confused now. You can't understand the roles of emission
time delay and observer distance in this.
Speeds of 30km/s can produce a wide range of brighness variations, up to at
least 3 before peaks start to appear.
Our own sun will appear to vary when viewed at 50LY, due to its orbit around
the Sun/Jupiter barycentre.

All that is irrelevant though because balllistic effect
variations affect all bands equally while the K and V
band difference tell us that the surface temperature is
changing.

Well nobody is likely to come up with a decent theory until the rammifications
of the BaTh are included. As I said, there are many possibilities..


Opacity variations are yet another tricky aspect,
but you don't need to worry about that at all,
just fit the velocity curve and show me what your
program gives. Then we can talk sensibly.

Producing velocity curves from different layers is a bit difficult.

You only have one layer to worry about, the
photosphere is only a few hundred km thick by
the time it is totally opaque.

How do you know? Was this a conclusion based on constant c observations.
Willusions are very deceptive George.


However I
have given you the required yaw angles and eccentricities required to
simulate
these two so all you have to do is plot them.

No thanks, I tried a couple of days ago and got yet
another 'subscript out of bounds' error so I'll leave
that to you.

The latest version plots the true velocity for you. I think I have succeeded in
removing all the bugs.

My program does it for you.
......but remember, these are the REAL not the OBSERVED curves.

Here's what you need to do again:

1) match the observed velocity curve with your
predicted version by altering the 'orbital'
parameters of the true motion. It isn't
actually an orbit but it is a versatile
arbitrary curve generator.

I have told you, the ADoppler velocity curve is essentially the same as the
brighness curve...except fro very short period situations.

2) for your chosen parameters, show three plots:
a) predicted _observed_ velocity
b) predicted _true_ radial distance
c) predicted _observed_ luminosity

Note the radius is true, not observed because we
measure the angular width and the edges move
perpendicular to the line of sight so c+v doesn't
apply. That's would not be the case for a binary
system.

George, that measurement is done in a very indirect way using
interferometry...which is very much affected by variable light speed.

If you want to claim you can match a Cepheid, that's
what it takes.

I have matched many cepheids.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:09:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

No doubt some star DO go 'huff-puff' and change temperature as they do. I
have
never argued otherwise,..... even though there is no decent theory linking
expansion with temperature change.

ROFL! Henry, that's a classic. Can I take it you
have never pumped up a bicycle tyre then :-)))))

That you think you can get away with claiming a
degree in physics and still come out with crap
like that is quite astonishing.

What's' wrong with it?


George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 11:02:59 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 22, 5:54 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 05:43:33 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Jul 21, 5:45 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:23:32 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

Basic physics knowledge on the nature of black-body
radiation tells us that the hot gases in the surface layers
of a star cannot possibly be so transparent so as to allow
light from your hypothetical K-band emission layer to pass
through without being absorbed and re-radiated. Your proposal
is dead in the water.

What a silly load of oversimplification ..

Have you ever tried to read a newspaper through a flame?

Have you ever tried to read a newspaper through a flame of temperature
1000000 C ?

At extreme temperatures, Thompson Scattering (scattering of photons
by free electrons) places a lower bound on the opacity = 0.4 cm^2/g
independent of frequency. Plugging in the numbers suggests that if
you went swimming in a 10,000,000 C pool of ionized stellar gases
at 0.01 atm, you really shouldn't be able to see anything past a
hundred kilometers or so.

But nobody has actually tried...

At lower temperatures, the opacity is greater. At temperatures
characteristic of the surface layers of a star such as our Sun,
H- ions are the principal contributor to stellar opacity. It is
essentially impossible for us to view anything below where the
stellar atmosphere reaches pressures of 0.01 atm. This approximately
marks the boundary of the photosphere.

So how do YOU explain the two different curves?

The glowing parts of the flame are opaque. Why?

This is basic, basic, basic physics...

Jerry



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:09:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news

No doubt some star DO go 'huff-puff' and change temperature as they do.
I
have
never argued otherwise,..... even though there is no decent theory
linking
expansion with temperature change.

ROFL! Henry, that's a classic. Can I take it you
have never pumped up a bicycle tyre then :-)))))

That you think you can get away with claiming a
degree in physics and still come out with crap
like that is quite astonishing.

What's' wrong with it?

".. there is no decent theory linking expansion with
temperature change."

Have you never heard of adiabatic expansion?

http://chem.ufl.edu/~itl/4411L_f00/gamma/gamma.html

Do you know how a fridge works?

George

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:48:14 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 18:53:32 +0100, "George Dishman"

You agreed it Henry, there is no detectable ADoppler
for J1909-3744 or for the contacts binaries we looked
at. You still have to model the Cepheids correctly
before we can discuss that, match the velocity curve
for L Car and we will see.

The observed curve should be something like its brightness curve upside
down.

For the band-limited in the paper, it is dominated
by the temperature changes.

The VDoppler contribution is generally negligible in all but pulsars and
contact binaries. ...

Exactly, you even admit what I said is true .

I have always made that point clear.... I even explained why it happens.

Fine, so do say I'm "repeat[ing] this nonsense over
and over" when you have always said the same.

You repeat lots of nonsense over and over George...and it's all YOURS.

Oh dear, Henry I am assuming you can do algebra at
secondary school level. Time is not shown explicitly
because you are supposed to realise that velocity v,
and acceleration are both functions of time. I could
write v(t) instead of just v but you should be aware
of that convention anyway.

No George, where is brightness vs TIME.

The graphs are versus phase where

phase = (time - ref)/period

Distance does appear in the equations. From below:

f'/f = c(c+v)/(c^2-da)

That would be the 'frequency' shift of a single photon on arrival,

No, you misunderstand, f' and f are the rates at
which photons are emitted and received, not the
frequencies of the photons themselves. If I say
that the units would be photons per second rather
than cycles per second, does that help?

No. You are evading the question.

The question was "where is brightness vs TIME".
By brightness, I assume you mean luminosity as
you get that wrong all the time. The answer is
that it is the equation I have been posting
throughout.

How about turning your equation into results George.
I wont bother with that approach because I don't have a million years to spare.
I'll let the computer do it all in five minutes.
It's not my fault if you aren't clever enough to write a computer program.

You don't have any kind of model.

I am using your ballistic theory, I don't need a
model.

You haven't included emission time delay. You are quite clueless about this.
If you try to program your 'doppler' method of producing BaTh curves you will
soon discover where you are going wrong.
The programming is very difficult due to the fact that both the x AND Y
coodinates are nonlinear.

What do you think a computer is for.

You don't even follow the conversation, do you.

I'm way ahead of you..

No, you till don't understand schoolboy algebra.
Sometimes when I write just a letter for a variable,
it is imlied that it is a function of time, just like
a function in Basic.

well stop raving and produce some results.


I assumed you had knowledge of schoolboy maths
Henry, f' and f are functions of time.

To produce brightness curves you have to plot arrival photon density
versus
time ..

Not density Henry, I don't care how many photons
per cc there are. It is photon _rate_ that matters.
That's what the above equations do.

The number of photons arriving per second x individual photon energy is what
matters.
I know you are looking for clues as to how to write a program George. Have fun
with elliptical orbits....

.. after including the additional VDoppler energy increase in each photon.

Nope, you don't include that because CCD's count
photons, they cannot measure their energy.

Luminosity vs time depends on the above factors.
My program works that out using two quite independent mthods and plots the
results.

Nope, I don't calculate that factor at all, my
equations relate _only_ to the 'photon bunching'
due to the velocity and acceleration.

...source acceleration only. Not velocity.

Oh dear, what do you think the "v" in the equation
represents?

It is supposed to cover the VDoppler.

Yes Henry, "v" stands for "velocity" and the
"V" on the front of "VDoppler" also stands
for "velocity" so the equation _does_ include
the VDoppler contribution.

so what...


You are yet to produce ONE brightness curve.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/fit_lum.png

Your theory is a very bad fit Henry.

Your VDoppler curve is a joke. You can't produce anything like the
observed
magnitude variations with VDoppler, George.

Of course not Henry, they are due to temperature
changes.

I agree many brightness vartiations ARE due to temperature
variations....variations due to the fact that orbiting stars in tidal lock have
one face that is much hotter than the other.
Hot plasma between closely orbiting binaries will also produce a varying
temperate and luminosity effect.

..and you are using the willusory
spectral data to produce the velocity curve.

ADoppler produces both the velocity and brighness curves.

But then you have to integrate twice to get the
radius curve - try it henry, it doesn't fit, and
anyway you keep telling me K1 which means there
is no ADoppler in the spectral line shift so the
speeds have the correct values, they are just
skewed by the effect of c+v on time of arrival.

You don't know the true radius curve. You don't even know if it is a huff puff
or an orbiting star. Even if it is a huff puff, the oscillation might be
synched with an orbit...how else can you explain the dead constancy of most
cepheid periods.
Astronomers are terribly limitied in their reasoning due to the Einstein
debacle.


I can match just about any curve George.

Match L Car's velocity curve then Henry, then we
will make some progress.

You only know L Car's willusory curve.

Match L Car's magnitude change George....using your willusion.

I don't USE willusions George.
I match them with true values.

You are the one claiming to be able to match Cepheid
curves Henry, I'm calling your bluff, you cannot match
both the radius curve and velocity curve if you assume
the velocity curve is ADoppler as the theory requires.

You still don't get it George.

I PRODUCE the TRUE velocity curves (and radius, if applicable) .


OF course not, all you have done is write a curve
fitting program that can match anything from a flute
snippet to band limited thermal radiation and prove
both are "Keplerian orbits" :-)

Bull****. It can only match very specific shapes...and nearly all star
curves
fit into its range.

And so do flute solos and temperature profiles :-)

.....when you make irrational statements like this I know I am arguing with a
desperate person.

If you call this a fit:

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/fit_lum.png

I guess you could be impressed, I'm not.

You are relying on a willusion to produce another willusion.

Show me your match if you think you can do better.
Forget the luminosity, it is temperature dominated
but you should be able to match the radius and
velocity curves with a single fit and then predict
how much the ballistic effects alter the luminosity.

It's more complicated than that.
If there IS a genuine temperature and intrinsic brightness variation, it will
add to the BaTh one.
That opens up a whole new range of possibilities.

I already have thirteen variables in my program. I can hardly add more....

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:30:55 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:55:02 -0700, Jeff Root wrote:
Henry replied to George:

[I wrote:]

... It's not worth doing though because
you would just revert to your dragged aether
model anyway.

It isn't a dragged aether model.
...
My spheres remain 'centred on' the stars....maybe lagging behind in phase
a
little. I would call that being dragged as in the classical sense. (eg.,
the
MMX apparatus 'dragging' aether with it)

Precisely what I meant.

Typo! I meant to write "I WOULD NOT CALL THAT DRAGGED..........."

Would you?

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.