Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:44:40 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:22:33 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
...
There is a time diffrence in average emission of light in the two bands.
K maximum is about 90 behind the V max. What does that suggest?

We have covered this several times but I'll summarise,
in the K band the variation of surface brightness due
to temperature is small (which we know from Planck's
Law) so the luminosity varies nearly as the square of
the interferometric radius measured by ESO.

You don't know that at all. That's just an assumption made to try to match
the
willusions.

Of course I know, it falls out directly from the Planck
curve. Just calculate the variation you will get for the
measured temperature variation. The bandwidth of K band
is from 2000nm to 2400nm so you can try doing the sums
yourself. That gives you the variation of surface
brightness.

The variation of angular diameter is also as measured,
no assumption there. We don't even need to know the
distance to the star because the area varies in
proportion to the square of the angular size and it
is a simple fact that the luminosity divided by the
surface brightness matches the square of the angular
radius.

George, I wouldn't have any faith in equations that use willusory data.

Neither
of those is subject to "willusion" effects other than
the shift of the time of arrival (and even that is
debatable for the interferometric radius).

George, you can't believe any of it.

Of course I do, these measurements are simple in
principle though technically challenging so why
shouldn't I. You have had numerous opportunities
to say why they might not be valid but all you do
is make facile comments like that and stall for
time.

Don't YOU talk about stalling for time.
That's obviosly your whole approach...."if youl can't beat 'em, at least waste
as much of their time as you can"....

Put the measured temperature and measured radius changes
together and the luminosity is fully explained leaving
no need for an ADoppler component.

Hahahaha! How many asumptions did you have to make to arrive at the answer
you
wanted george?

Only one fairly basic assumption which can be
confirmed by multi-band photometry. Can you
guess what it is? Here's your chance to show
that you have learned some astronomy.

Yes I'm quite aware of that relationship George....effectively, size,
luminosity and distance are related for stars of similar temperature.

Take the derivative of the radius curve and you get the
velocity curve showing that it is VDoppler, not ADoppler.

More speculation....

Nope, schoolboy calculus, though I guess that
might be the black arts to you based on your
past understanding. Take the radius curve and
differentiate once to get velocity. Differentiate
again to get the acceleration. Now shift the
time of arrival of the velocity and acceleration
curves to account for "c+v" influenced travel
time and see which one matches. The velocity
is best but not good if you assume a large speed
equalisation distance, and it gets closer as you
reduce that parameter. The acceleration curve is
hopeless no matter what.

I hve told you before, it is possible to get similarly shaped curves and
phasing with both A and V doppler.
The only difference is that VDoppler can't produce anything like the observed
magnitude changes or curve shapes in general.

it certainly throws out YOUR theory.

No, conventional theory fits all the curves. It throws
out the idea that the velocity curve has any ADoppler
because the phase would be wrong, and it explains all of
the observed luminosity variation without any need for
an ADoppler contribution either so the evidence supports
conventional, not ballistic theory.

Explain the phasing of the OBSERVED temperature curve, George.

Just before minimum radius, the increasing pressure
He++ "light valve" becomes transparent and dumps a
heap of energy into the upper layers causing the
temperature to rise rapidly after which it cools.
The radiation pressure turns the mass of the gas
around and starts it accelerating outward and the
acoustic resonance 'tunes' the relaxation oscillator.
The curves are what is expected.

The theory is simply designed to match the willusion. There is no reason to
accept any of 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.

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

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.

If the velocity peaks with the luminosity and
is 90 degrees out from the acceleration then
the acceleration should peaks 90 degrees out
from the luminosity.

You still havent gotten used to ADoppler yet George.

You still haven't got used to calculus Henry.

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.

Results are published as they are measured
Henry, you are completely clueless about the
process. If you bothered to read the pages I
cite you would find that they measured the
angular variation and then did a best fit to
the integrated Doppler treating the distance
to the star as a free parameter. The value
they get for that distance from the fit is
close to that from other methods but not quite
the same, but it is published regardless.

What you are missing is first that their
results will be scrutinised by competing teams
who will look to find fault, and second that
their method may give a better distance measure
and be able to correct everyone else's which
means they get the credit for a major advance.

You are so used to cheating your own results
by putting in "K" factors or "forces unknown"
or "speed equalisation" bodges that you have
never understood how real science is done.

Irrespective of all that, all we are concerned
with at the moment is the variation of angular
diameter because that directly affects the
luminosity and until you take it into account
your fitting process is simply wrong. For K band
the brightness change is about a fifth of the
luminosity change due to the radius variation.

George

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

But that has no effect on the interferometer,
all of it is on Earth ;-)

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.

Nope, there is no distortion introduced
by ballistic theory.

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.

Garbage, it is no more suspect than a grating.

Add variable light speed and
it becomes almost useless.

It has no effect, you only want to wave it
away because you cannot stomach the truth.

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.

Intensity Henry.

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.

Wrong, the figure is the measured shift. I am saying
Cepheid surface speeds are typically less than 30km/s
so 0.01% is an upper limit. Whether that is caused by
VDoppler or ADoppler doesn't matter, the shift is no
more than that value. That means no more than 0.24nm
worth of the band moves out at one end while about the
same amount moves in at the other.

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

Do that, you are obviously missing the point at the
moment.

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.

That doesn't mean the model can be made to fit.

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.

I am. You know that for simultaneous equations
you can find a solution if you have as many
equations ars you have variables. You have
numerous parameters you can alter to get a fit
and basically if you have say ten variable, you
can do a Fourier fit of up to the fifth harmnonic
with sin and cosine terms (or amplitude and phase)
for each.

For Cepheid models you have basically the mass
of the star and to a degree the elemental
abundance. For any particular star you also have
the age but the model has to fit over the full
evolution of the star so that isn't really free
from a modelling point of view. Also mass, age
and chemistry can all be constrained by observation
so there is no significant scope for fiddling.

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...

No, check the top of this post, you were arguing
that the luminosity peaked with the acceleration,
not the velocity.

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.

I am not making any, I am educating you on
how to go about doing a fit that won't use
information that you don't have.

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.

Since both changes are directly observed, your
conclusion is wrong. To justify it, you would
need to write down the equations and then solve
them to show that a star whoae temperature didn't
vary would produce a Planck-shaped curve over
multiple bands which varied _as_if_ the temperature
were changing due to some ballistic effect. You
can't do that because photon bunching due to
ADoppler and VDoppler is frequency independent.

That means we know the temperature _does_ change
and with it surface brightness so until you
subtract that part from the luminosity curve,
your results are badly flawed.

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....

The temperature _value_ is valid, only the arrival
time (orbital phase) would be offset by the c+v
effect.

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.

No Henry I live in the real universe, "willusions"
are you imaginary effect, but regardless your
ballistic equations not not result in "willusions"
on temperature measurements and probably not on
the radius measurement to any great extent.

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.

Yes.

Small differences in emission times and relative velocities from each
side could markedly affect the results.

Emission times cannot matter because the light
is uncorrelated anyway. Speed differences could
matter but the light is moving at the same c/n
value when it reaches the interferometer so there
is no real scope for a distortion that way that
I can see.

You might want to consider the overall setup:

http://tinyurl.com/3dybf3

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.

There is also simple heating due to the added
energy which is the more significant contribution.

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

I'll try to find the eigenstate plots which
make it clear.

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.

Nope, in real science the equations have been
published and reviewed and can't be changed.
They are the same equations used for all other
branches of acoustics.

After all, that's just what Planck did to get his black body curve.

Nope, that's what Wien and those before him
did, they are called "empirical" laws. Planck
derived his equation from the postulate that
energy was emitted in packets each with an
energy proportional to its frequency and from
the statistics for occupancy of different modes
so he had no scope to adjust the equation at
all. The derivation is published so you can
repeat his process and you will get the same
answer. The fact that the equation fits the
observations is what gives confidence that
the postulate was valid.

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, no Henry each photon is emitted by a single
charged particle. Each photon passes through
both telescopes of the interferometer and
lands with a probability that depends on the
path length difference to create an interference
pattern matching the probability of landing at
some point. It is similar to the usual grating
equation. It is the overlaying of those patterns
from different parts of the star that alters the
contrast ratio of the fringes and tells us the
diameter.

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.

Exactly, but when it is done, the models do match
the observed curves.

George

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

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..?


Henri, your 'K factor' theory died some time back when I pointed out that a
'K factor' compression of photons implies observable effects that are not
observed.

Any effect on photons causing them to compress when crowded together would
show up as shifts in wavelength and frequency of the emission from high
intensity sources, such as lasers.

Also, 'as the pressure goes down, the photons would decompress' just like
the rubber ball springs back when removed from the depths. Surely the weak
streams of photons we receive from those distant stars have insufficient
'pressure' to keep the photons compressed.

You can't propose a 'non elastic compression', where the photons stay
compressed because they are already 'highly compressed' at the time of
emission by the star.

Also lasers can operate at very low emission rates (in fact, there are
single photon lasers) and any such effect would show up as drastic shifts
in the emission band as the laser's output power was varied.

Give up on your 'K'. It is disproved daily by millions of laser diodes used
for gigabyte fiber optical data transmission.

If the photons 'bunched up' the way you propose, it would cause very strong
phase shifts and keying transients, making it impossible to push data down
those fibers at the rates data is sent, every day.

If you ever have heard a radio-telegraph transmitters that has chirp
(frequency shift during turn-on) and clicks (wide keying sidebands due to
too sharp turn-on/turn-off), you will know that such a transmitter can
cause interference with communications across a wide portion of the radio
spectrum. Any attempt to transmit data at a high data rate, with such a
transmitter, would fail.

That is exactly why your 'K' factor 'photon compression' idea is dead.







--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

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

Sure, both factors operate.

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.

Indeed and care must be taken for that reason
especially with local factors like absorption
by water and oxygen in the K band. These
effects are well known though, nobody ignores
them.

(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 emissivity is 100% at the bottom of the
layer Henry, Kirchoff's law requires that.

The whole method is highly suspect George.

No, it is very simple really. Of course there
are practical aspects as you say but all are
well known.

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.

Of course, but the way it varies is correctly
predicted by the models.

...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..?

I've told you before, analogies are only useful
as an aid to understanding. Until you provide
your equation, there is nothing to be understood.
Do the science first and look for analogies later.

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...

Viscosity will affect the rate of descent but
not the compression of the ball, that is set
by the pressure and modulus of the rubber.

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...

Write out the equation and we will find out.

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.

The sea's temperature changes only slightly with
depth after the first few tens of metres, and the
effect on the ball will be minimal. Viscosity
has no effect at all on the volume of the ball.

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.

Right, so can you produce an alternative that
still matches the same lab observations?

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.

Since the gas is a black body radiator, it must
also be a perfect absorber. As the density rises,
it becomes completely opaque which is why you
cannot see through to a second layer.

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?

No, I believe you have added so many adjustable
parameters in your program that you can fit any
curve, Keplerian or not.

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...

Sorry Henry, they match observation so they are
right by the only measure that counts in science.

George

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

I know you have trouble following much of
it, I try to explain it as simply as I can
but you need to make an effort too.

Which one
will I point to...

There is only one other but since you can't
see it I suppose I'll have to tell you. The
rough figures I gave used the ratio of the
peak-to-peak variations. For K band where
the radius and luminosity are in phase that
is valid but for V band the curves are
different so you should really plot the
ratio then take the peak. It makes little
difference though and would have been a lot
more effort.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:14:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
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.

Oh dear, are you upset that I did in one "****y
little equation" what has taken you several years
of programming? :-0

Never mind Henry, you probably learnt a lot about
coding in the process.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:44:40 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 14:22:33 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
...
There is a time diffrence in average emission of light in the two
bands.
K maximum is about 90 behind the V max. What does that suggest?

We have covered this several times but I'll summarise,
in the K band the variation of surface brightness due
to temperature is small (which we know from Planck's
Law) so the luminosity varies nearly as the square of
the interferometric radius measured by ESO.

You don't know that at all. That's just an assumption made to try to
match
the
willusions.

Of course I know, it falls out directly from the Planck
curve. Just calculate the variation you will get for the
measured temperature variation. The bandwidth of K band
is from 2000nm to 2400nm so you can try doing the sums
yourself. That gives you the variation of surface
brightness.

The variation of angular diameter is also as measured,
no assumption there. We don't even need to know the
distance to the star because the area varies in
proportion to the square of the angular size and it
is a simple fact that the luminosity divided by the
surface brightness matches the square of the angular
radius.

George, I wouldn't have any faith in equations that use willusory data.

brightness = luminosity / area

That is true by definition.

Neither
of those is subject to "willusion" effects other than
the shift of the time of arrival (and even that is
debatable for the interferometric radius).

George, you can't believe any of it.

Of course I do, these measurements are simple in
principle though technically challenging so why
shouldn't I. You have had numerous opportunities
to say why they might not be valid but all you do
is make facile comments like that and stall for
time.

Don't YOU talk about stalling for time.
That's obviosly your whole approach...."if youl can't beat 'em, at least
waste
as much of their time as you can"....

So when are you going to stop stalling and match
the velocity curve of L Car? Or are you going to
try the same old trick of moaning that we don't
know the true velocity when you know perfectly
well that I mean you should match the observed
value by changing the true parameters you input
to the program? You've used that at least three
times now.

Put the measured temperature and measured radius changes
together and the luminosity is fully explained leaving
no need for an ADoppler component.

Hahahaha! How many asumptions did you have to make to arrive at the
answer
you
wanted george?

Only one fairly basic assumption which can be
confirmed by multi-band photometry. Can you
guess what it is? Here's your chance to show
that you have learned some astronomy.

Yes I'm quite aware of that relationship George....effectively, size,
luminosity and distance are related for stars of similar temperature.

Nope. The assumption is "extinction" in the
correct astronomical sense. Dust in the ISM
scatters different wavelengths by different
amounts. Multi-band photometry can separate
the Planck curve from the dust reddening but
two band work needs to assume a calibration
curve.

Take the derivative of the radius curve and you get the
velocity curve showing that it is VDoppler, not ADoppler.

More speculation....

Nope, schoolboy calculus, though I guess that
might be the black arts to you based on your
past understanding. Take the radius curve and
differentiate once to get velocity. Differentiate
again to get the acceleration. Now shift the
time of arrival of the velocity and acceleration
curves to account for "c+v" influenced travel
time and see which one matches. The velocity
is best but not good if you assume a large speed
equalisation distance, and it gets closer as you
reduce that parameter. The acceleration curve is
hopeless no matter what.

I hve told you before, it is possible to get similarly shaped curves and
phasing with both A and V doppler.

Right, and I have told you that using the radius
curve let's you distinguish them.

The only difference is that VDoppler can't produce anything like the
observed
magnitude changes or curve shapes in general.

It doesn't need to, the radius and temperature
are enough on their own. Match the velocity
curve with both VDoppler and then ADoppler
and see which matches the radius, you are just
stalling again.

it certainly throws out YOUR theory.

No, conventional theory fits all the curves. It throws
out the idea that the velocity curve has any ADoppler
because the phase would be wrong, and it explains all of
the observed luminosity variation without any need for
an ADoppler contribution either so the evidence supports
conventional, not ballistic theory.

Explain the phasing of the OBSERVED temperature curve, George.

Just before minimum radius, the increasing pressure
He++ "light valve" becomes transparent and dumps a
heap of energy into the upper layers causing the
temperature to rise rapidly after which it cools.
The radiation pressure turns the mass of the gas
around and starts it accelerating outward and the
acoustic resonance 'tunes' the relaxation oscillator.
The curves are what is expected.

The theory is simply designed to match the willusion. There is no reason
to
accept any of it.

Since the "willusion" doesn't exist if ADoppler
doesn't exist, the models are right for ballistic
theory as well, and if you stop stalling and do
the match I suggested, you will find out there
is no ADoppler present. You can make whatever
excuses you like (spheres, radiation pressure,
'forces unknown') but the fact remains that no
observed ADoppler means the models are robust.

George

On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:39:15 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:36:49 +0100, "George Dishman"



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.

I will calculate K for more stars in future to see if there is any consistency.


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.

It was only relatively recently that man realised events in space happened
millions or even billions of years ago. That is due to the fact that light
takes time to go from A to B.

You are yet to acknowledge that the Time for light to go from A to B is not
constant.

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 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:21:04 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 20:47:17 +0100, "George Dishman"

haven't found the deliberate one.

Like I said, just about everything you write appears as a mistake.

I know you have trouble following much of
it, I try to explain it as simply as I can
but you need to make an effort too.

Which one
will I point to...

There is only one other but since you can't
see it I suppose I'll have to tell you. The
rough figures I gave used the ratio of the
peak-to-peak variations. For K band where
the radius and luminosity are in phase that
is valid but for V band the curves are
different so you should really plot the
ratio then take the peak. It makes little
difference though and would have been a lot
more effort.

See!
You can fiddle anything if you try hard enough.

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.