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

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:36:49 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
Do the sums, the difference would be at most a
fraction of a second in 35 days.

That's not right.

It is right, 0.21 seconds.

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.

Oops, I used the 0.1m/s difference instead of
the 30km/s speed, the separation would be 6.3km,
in keeping with my earlier 10km estimate, and
still negligible in a layer 400km thick with a
small temperature difference across it.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:39:47 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..

Easily, brightness is luminosity per unit area. Why do
you think I have been correcting you on that for weeks?

The radius varies by about 12% giving an area variation
of 26%. We would expect the K band brightness variation
of 33% to be mostly due to the change of area and if
you compare the K curve with figure 2 you will see the
maxima are around phase 0.4 with the minimum at 0.9
and the minimum is a sharper turn-round than the max.
In fact the curves are very similar.

For the V band the situation is reversed, the 26% area
change is less than the 90% luminosity change so the V
band curve should be dominated by the temperature curve.
Unfortunately that isn't shown in this paper but if you
look at typical temperature curves you will see they are
similar to luminosity in general.

...and all pure speculation based on an incorrect theory...

All confirmed as being the same in your theory.

Not so George...don't dream..

The factors above, radius and temperature are
both unaffected by ballistic theory.

Don't waste your time, in these threads we have seen
that your theory would give the same results apart
from a few areas where it gets it wrong, Shapiro delay
in pulsars for example.

I have explained the mysterious Shapiro delay. It's just solar wind and
radiation in action....

See my other post regarding shadowing by Jupiter,
you suggestion make it worse, it is not an
explanation.

George

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:14:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 12:37:14 +0100, "George Dishman"

I have told you my alternative view of Shapiro delay.

See my other post, your suggestion makes it
worse, it is not a solution.

BTW, I intend to reduce the number of threads
I reply to after this as i'm only holiday for
two weeks and may not have access to the net.

OK

You can use all the maths you can copy from a web page George.

I haven't copied any henry, and I don't think
you will find it anywhere either, it is a test
to see if you can work it out for yourself.

But don't fall
into the Paul Andersen trap of not understanding it yourself.

You are the only one who is struggling with it
Henry, and before you understand it, you have
to be able to produce it. My impression is that
you cannot do it and you are making excuses to
cover it up.

I've forgotten what it is.

I'm not surprised, but you have since accepted
that my own result is valid. The point was that
you ere incapable of doing the maths needed to
derive it and stalled for time until you could
dismiss it. You have confirmed my impression
that you have lost any ability you had to do
schoolboy level algebra.

Keep whining George.
I'll just plod along slowly getting results using my program that solves a
billion of your ****y little equations per second.

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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 09:17:10 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in
:


Henri, unless your TRUE initials are G.O.D. you can NOT know the TRUE
orbital parameters.
Be honest and admit that you guess at the parameters necessary in order
for your program to produce a curve that looks like the particular curve
you are trying to fit.

That is ALL.

THAT IS CORRECT.

There is no other way to detemine the true situation from the willusion
we see. Is this so hard for you lesser mortals to understand?

Viewing stars is not the same as seeing on Earth. Light speed must be
taken into account....particularly variable light speed.

Now IF your program were constructed so as to accurately model BaTH and
IF BaTH were correct and
IF the set of parameters that gives the curve were unique and
IF the curve you are trying to fit accurately reflects what is observe
THEN your parameters might reflect the 'TRUE orbital parameters'.

ON the other hand, your program has demonstrably produced parameters
that are NOT true orbital parameters, such as when you fitted the
flute's curve.

My program pruduces a very narrow range of curves based solely on the
c+v of an orbiting or pulsating sourse. It turns out that most star
curves can be simulated with this approach. What does that STRONGLY
suggest Bob?

The flute thing was a joke mumbled by some desperate relativists.

Which calls into doubt the accuracy of the the use of the word 'TRUE'.

....

but the published temperature curve simply cannot be correct. Like I
said,for a huffpuff, the maximum temperature SHOULD and MUST BE just
before the point of minimum radius.

Recall that I pointed you toward the question of when the maximum
temperature of an internal combustion engine occurs. Study it well.

I've never seen a star with four wheels Bob. If I do I'll name it after
you.

The diesel engine is a good analogy to begin with when studying WHP
[Wilsonian huff and puff) stars.

I don't think so Bob.
gravity is the main force in the contraction phase. The 'explosion' must take
place just before the bottom and this must also be the point of maximum
temprature at least for the lower layers. A compression and temperature 'wave'
would rapidly radiate outwards. I'm not even going to try to speculate about
its rate or its relationship with radius change (if any).

Clearly, the max temperature internal temperature of a 'huff and puff'
star will occur some time AFTER the fusion process ignites, and after
the in falling halts.

Wrong. the main part of the star will be contracting when the 'core
explosion' takes place and rapidly forces it out again.
The maximum temperature should occur at maximum compression...BEFORE the
expansion begins.

+/- a few degrees of top dead center(maximum compression).

The exact angle of max core temp is really not the important point.

No, It is the way the subsequent temperature wave affects the outermost
layers.

When would WE see the peak temperature?

Surely NOT as the gasses are still in-falling. The heating has begun
around the core, but we won't see it until the heat from that reaction
makes its way to the surface of the star.

As with any oscillating system, the amplitude lags the driving force by
90.

So, the peak temperature seen will come after the minimum radius of the
star, right?

You would like it to be that simple, i'm sure...but that is a pretty broad
claim and is probably correct....maybe not for small stars.



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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:48:01 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
..
I've never seen a star with four wheels Bob. If I do I'll name it after
you.

The sad thing is that ballistic theory predicts we
should see exactly that, stars in binary systems
should show multiple images and they don't. By
some remarkable piece of magic, the space between
us and binaries always adjusts so that, just before
those images should appear, the speeds get unified.

George, you certanly need that holiday..... you are becoming hopelessly
confused.
The conditions for multiple imagery are never even approached.

What a remarkable coincidence, or is it the fairies
again?

No.. all the fairies are on Einstein's side...

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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:44:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:32:44 +0100, "George Dishman"

George, as far as I'm concerned, everything you say is riddled with
mistakes.
For a start, I certainly DON'T accept that the radius varies by 12%

Tough, that is the value directly measured by ESO.

it is wrong.

Rubbish, the speed of light in air is the same
as in conventional theory so the results are
the same.

Light traves a long way before it reaches Earth's air.

Interferometry doesn't work in BaTh.

Probably, but interferometry works in the real
world so that is only a problem for the theory.





George, does our sun noticeably vary in size?

No, and if ESO used the interferometric technique
it would show as constant.

I doubt if anything would show up at 50000 LYs...

Probably not, that's why they started with L Car,
it is one of the closest and largest Cepheids and
subtends the largest angle.

Interferomery will give a distorted answer.

but if it did it could easily
show a willusory varying radius rather than a constant one....because of
the
varying c+v.

Sorry Henry, you have to do better than hand waving.
The speed at the interferometer is the same across
the instrument so the interference pattern is
unaffected.

George, the technique is highly suspect at best. Add variable light speed and
it becomes almost useless.

To a distant observer, our sun will appear to vary in both BRIGHTNESS
and
LUMINOSITY by the same fractional amount every 12 years due to its orbit
around
its barycentre with Jupiter.

But not in temperature.

there would even be a willusory temperature variation due to ADopler
shifting
of the Planck curve..

Nope, the shift is only 0.01%. The K band is from
2200nm to 2400nm so the median shift is 0.22nm.
How much does that change the intensity in the band
for a Planck curve at ~6000K? It is utterly negligible.

Don't be so hasty George.
The Planck curve deals with PHOTON DENSITY in a particular band.
Photon density variation due to ADoppler DOES NOT include my 'K' factor...so
your figure of 0.01 is not anywhere near the correct one.

This is going to become pretty complicated so I will think about it.


George, quite clearly, if L Car is a huffpuff, its maximum temperture
should
occur about 30 degrees BEFORE minimum radius....when the 'exploding' core
bangs
up against the contracting outer layers. Would you not agree?

Nope, you are taking only a single aspect without
considering the overall structure, it is hopelessly
naive. The light valve passes the light as some time
but it then has to work up through ~5% of the star's
radius to the photosphere. The mass of the gas has a
huge inertia but the light pulses are driving an
acoustic resonance and you know what that means for
the phase. There are shock waves propagating through
the region and the gas contains multiple species and
you have to take all of that into account. The bottom
line remains, the conventional modelling matches the
observations.

Naturally it would...because the required answers were already known. When I
match KNOWN curves, you say I just fiddle with a curve matching program till I
get the right answer.
You should be consistent George.


You should be able to agree the temperature
measurement since ballistic theory doesn't
alter it.

The published curve cannot be right.

It is correct and matched by models based on
thermodynamics, acoustics, plasma physics and a
host of other techniques most of which are lab
based.

Yes, of course george.

You should also realise that both temperature
and size variations MUST affect the luminosity
to some extent therefore you cannot fit that
curve as if it was ONLY due to ballistic effects
and expect to get a valid set of parameters.

True to some extent....but in light of what I said above, the temperature
phasing should be similar to that of the ADoppler brightness..so there
shouldn't be all that much of an error.

The temperature and luminosity curves are similar
for optical bands since the temperature is the
key driver, but the ADoppler curve can be quite
different, you need to model it by fitting the
velocity curve to find out. That's what I have
been telling you for ages.

....and have been pointing out that the velocity curve should be similar in
shape an phase to the luminosity curve...but you never listen...

That is why I keep telling you that the only
way you can get a valid analysis is to fit
your predicted curve for the observed velocity
and then work back to get the true velocity.

You still don't understand that I feed into the program the TRUE orbital
parameters including velocity.

I know that. What you need to do is alter your
program so that it predicts what would be the
OBSERVED velocity curve based on spectral line
shift using the values you feed in and ballistic
theory. Then adjust your true values until that
prediction matches the actual OBSERVED spectral
line shift (which you get from the published
velocity curve). Then when you have got a match,
your program will predict the luminosity curve
and you can compare that to the actual curve
_after_ first removing the effects of radius
and temperature. You get the radius by integrating
your true velocity and the temperature from the
published curves by correcting the time of arrival
to account for changing c+v.

You are making lots of assumptions.
Since I can produce the exact curves without including a temperature or radius
changes, my conclusion could easily and quite justifiably be that neither
changes occur...except in the minds of relativists.

From that you can integrate to get the true
radius or differentiate to get the true
acceleration and from those AND the temperature
AND the filter bandwidths you could then predict
the luminosity curves.

No George. You have it all back to front. I can calculate K for a star by
comparing the ADoppler produced luminosity variation with he OBSERVED
fractional velocity change.

Not until you correct the luminosity for
temperature and radius effects.

These are the willusory temperature changes of course....

What you have done to date omits so much that
it is meaningless.

You don't get it at all.

Oh I get it Henry, better than you. The vast
majority of the luminosity change is already
explained by radius and temperature changes so
until you remove those, any contribution from
ADoppler is unknown.

No George, you are still living in that imaginary universe in which willusions
don't exist.


Tough, you have given no alternative analysis.
Until you can apply ballistic theory to the
method and use it to prdict an alternative
radius, you haven't matched the observational
data.

The c+v variations will give the impression of a phase shift and
completely
confuse the interferometer.

Nope, the interferometer is only concerned about
the phase across the instrument of the light that
is arriving at a particular time. In fact the
interferometer will work with single photons (like
the gratings we discussed which are really a
particular type of interferometer) and obviously
each photon only has a single speed. Ballistic
theory doesn't suggest any form of distortion for
the instrument.

All photons arriving at different speeds will adjust to the same c/n on
entering Earth's atmosphere. Their absolute wavelengths will adjust
accordingly.
I gather that inferferometry effectively detects the angle subtended by the
star. Small differences in emission times and relative velocities from each
side could markedly affect the results.

If you take either of those and plot the
difference between the radii versus the phase,
then square that and convert to the magnitude
scale, you get the residual in terms of
brightness. If you match the velocity curve with
your program as I suggested, you get a template
for the ADoppler from your brightness curve, and
you could then calculate a correlation with the
actual residual to find the magnitude of the
ballistic effect. However, it is obvious from the
plots that the error is so small the ADoppler
will be in the noise.

The ADoppler is responsible for most - if not all - of the luminosity
variation.

Nope, the radius is responsible for most in
K band and surface brightness due to the
temperature change for most in V band.
ADoppler, if it exists, is responsible for
the difference between the radius/brightness
combination and the observed amount.

but the published temperature cuve simply cannot be correct. Like I
said,for a
huffpuff, the maximum temperatue SHOULD and MUST BE just before the point
of
minimum radius.

Think about a thick piece of metal heated from
one side by a blowlamp that is on for one second
every minute. We view the other side and the peak
temperature is shortly after the blowlamp goes
off. The size variation is an acoustic resonance
driven by the heat pulses via radiation pressure.
Trying to determine the phase relationship is far
more complex than your simplistic model.

The are two separate processes. There is an acoustic pressure wave that causes
adiabatic compression and temperature rise. As radius increases, there is also
an expansion that results in an adiabatic temperature DECREASE.

Frankly I cannot see any obvous connection between the acoustic wave and your
supposed largish radius change...or surface temperature.

Real models predict the eigenstates of the
oscillation, they get the harmonic content right,
they predict the 'bump' being in phase at 10 days
and the variation of that phase with luminosity.

They just fiddle the equations till they get the right answer.
After all, that's just what Planck did to get his black body curve.


Sorry Henry, interferometers here on Earth get
light moving at c/n through the atmosphere
even in ballistic theory so the result is
identical with BaTh.

No George. Light travels a long way before it reaches Earth..and the
phasing
between light emitted at slightly different times will vary accordingly
when
mixed with the interfrometer signal.

The phase is relevant to each single photon Henry,
you cannot have interference between light emitted
at slightly different times because it is thermal
(black body) so uncorrelated. The interferometer
is sensitive to arrival time differences for each
photon individually, the resulting curves are the
statistical sum of the photon flux.

I don't see how a single photon could be emitted by both sides of a star.
if it was, it would create NO interference.

No current astronomical principle is immune to the 'constant c' curse.

Repeating your dogma in the face of facts
just makes it obvious how you let your
religious convictions outweigh scientific
analysis. Ballistic theory says the
interferometric radius and the temperature
values are correct and only the time of
arrival is modified.

Both BaTh and thermodynamics say that the maximum temperature of a
huffpuff
should occur slightly before minimum radius.

The temperature curve is that of a relaxation
oscillator - essentially a sawtooth - with a
delay for the time for the light to reach the
surface. Acoustic theory says the motion will
be a driven and damped resonance with harmonics.
The resulting phase is not trivial to work out.

It certainly is not trivial.

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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:47:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 15:42:36 -0700, Jerry
wrote:
On Aug 23, 7:10 am, "George Dishman" wrote:
...
BTW, have you spotted the deliberate mistake in my
recent postings? It will be interesting to see if
Henry can spot it (even with this hint) but don't
give it away if you have ;-)

Yeah, I thought at first it was a typo.

It was a genuine mistake.
I drew his attention to it.

One was genuine but I noted there were two, you
only asked if they were genuinely "deliberate".
You didn't spot either and so far you still
haven't found the deliberate one.

Like I said, just about everything you write appears as a mistake. Which one
will I point to...

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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:09:02 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


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

Note that the temperature _does_ fall as the
radius eincreases once the sudden input of
energy has stabilised.

The maximum SHOULD occur before minimum radius...at the point of maximum
compression.

Nah, too naive, it occurs just after a huge
amount of energy is dumped into the gas by
the "light valve". See my other posts for
details.

The temperature of all layers should increase as the star contracts under
gravity.

I think you haven't previously looked at a
typical temperature curve.

I have....and it is willusory anyway...

Nope, other than time of arrival, the
temperature is a ratio of bands so isn't
affected.

The 'ratio of bands' is very sensitive to the type of radiator. Any variation
from black body could have a profound effect.


(up to time of arrival), the temperature is
based on the ratio hence the 'photon bunching'
cancels.

I think Adoppler should shift the planck curve by the observed mag change
x my
factor K....but I wouldn't bet on it.

The cause doesn't matter, the shift is less than
0.01% or 0.22nm for K band when the filter is
400nm wide - completely negligible.

You cannot assume a consant emissivity for the changing surface layer either.
The whole method is highly suspect George.


What are you trying to tell me?

Even 5.3% is far greater than VDoppler can produce.

But not greater than the temperature variation
can produce.

.but the phasing is obviously wrong...even though astronomers have come up
with
ridiculous theories to make it appear correct.

Nope, the phasing is as expected, you just aren't
considering several important aspects.

I can imagine the phasing being very different in different types of stars.
Certainly the phasing of the overtone varies considerably.




...incidentally, does the ball speed up or slow down as it sinks?

You could try it but they usually float.

not solid rubber ones.....that's what I'm talking about.

Whatever.

Is that all you can say...'whatever' when we're discussing the basis of my 'K
factor' theory..?


Your inability to appreciate orders of magnitude
is showing again, pressure effects dominate by
a large margin.

no...viscosity of water is quite temperature dependent below about 10 C
and the

Who cares, check the quote, you were comparing the
change of size as the ball sinks due to the thermal
coefficient of rubber in water which would be at near
constant temperature against the effect of the pressure
on the rubber. The latter is vastly greater.

Viscosity George...but forget it...

bulk modulus of the rubber is probably highly pressure sensitive.....

It would be non-linear, you don't get negative
radii ;

Nor can you have photons with negative lengths...

but don't
worry about it to much...it obviously involves some nasty differential
equations. ...

....but never try to make a rubber submarine. ..it might never resurface.

Hehe, don't worry Henry, I'm way ahead

No you aren't. You didn't even consider the main factor, the temperature
gradient in the water and its affect on viscosity....
We know the ball's volume will decrease nonlinearly and we can assume it
remains in temperature equilibrium with the water.


round, and there are other factors that have
an influence no doubt, such as the acoustic
resonance. Take all of it into account though
and conventional theory successfully models
the observed behaviour.

You know what I think George. Anyone can come up with a different theory
to
explain the willusion with full knowledge that they can never be proved
wrong.

Sure Henry, but try coming up with a different
version of the Planck Law that also matches
the black body radiation curve in the lab.

Well, That's just what Planck did.

Try
finding a different equation of state for
ionised hydrogen that also matches the values
measured in the lab. Try finding a different
form of Kirchoff's Law that doesn't violate
the first law of thermodynamics.

I don't see how Kirchoff's law really comes into this. Sure the emissivity of
the surface is likely to change with both temperature and density but the law
will still hold.

Scientific
"theories" aren't the "speculation" that
laymen mean when they use the term, they are
rigid mathematical equations that can be used
with confidence over regions where they are
proven by observation.



I think I should give you some time to reconsider your whole
theory.

I prefer to take the time to learn what the
models say in the first place. You need to
learn enough to stop throwing out random
comments that are already in the models.

The models are wrong.

The models at first could not get the 10 day
period right for the in-phase 'bump' no matter
how people tried to adjust them. The opacity
of He++ was rechecked and found to be wrong
and that solved the problem. The essence of a
good model is that is _cannot_ be made to match
unless the parameters are valid, unlike your
excellent match to the theme from Close
Encounters with your "Keplerian Orbits Only"
program.

.......so you believe that cepheid curves are Keplarian out of pure coincidence?

There are still a few areas where the models
aren't complete, AFAIK mainly in transverse
modes (acoustic waves going over the surface
of the star rather than radially) but that
is cutting edge stuff and my knowledge is
superficial.

The models are all based on willusory Einstiniana stuff and are wrong...

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 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:50:11 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 19:19:48 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...

The phase reference is only determined by your previous
claims that the luminosity is usually in phase with the
velocity, hence you are claiming the radial velocity
peaks at the same time as the eclipse - I don't think so.

Sorry George, you are wrong again.

I am repeating what you told me and pointing out a
consequence that seems to have conveniently escaped
your notice.

That is not what I told you George.

You told me on several ocassions that the luminosity
is typically in phase with the velocity, ceck your
posts.

The implication of that claim is that th radial ACCELERATION should peak at
roughly the same time as the eclipse.
You still havent gotten used to ADoppler yet George.


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

Check the bottom two plots, those are the true motion
curves so as you can see I did use the equivalent of a
circular orbit. Try putting it into your program. If
you don't get the same as mine, check your coding.

That distance change is negligible.

It is the radius curve and is directly
measurable for L Car.


So who is going to prove the results wrong, eh?..even if they are way out.

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.