Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 12:31:39 +0000 (UTC), bz
wrote:

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.

.......but they are
That is why brightness and velocity curves are usually similar in shape but
different in magnituge change.

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.

....but photon density isn't actually what CAUSES them to compress. It just
happens to occur concurrently.Photons compress if their source is accelerating
or if they change speed during travel...but they're kind of 'damped' so the
movement doesn't go on forever.

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.

the K factor is small. maybe 10^-4

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.

no Bob you have it all wrong...

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.

You have entirely the wrong impression...



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 wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:14:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
variation due to the changing temperature is much
bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).
So since the radius changes as well, it is clear that
the luminosity variation due to the changing surface area
will be relatively more important in IR than it is in visible light.
That's why the IR-light curve has it maximum and minimum
at ca. phase 0.4 and 0.9 respectivly, just like the angular
diameter curve.
Compare fig 2 (K-mag) and fig2 and 3.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The V light curve will be more dominated by the temperature,
which has its maximum and minimum at phase 1 and 0.65 respectively.
Compare fig 2. (V-mag) in document above to fig 4.7 in document
below:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/26q3xh

...and I'm sure you could produce an equally nonsensical theory if the
published figures were entirely diffent.

The 'nonsensical' theory is Planck's black body radiation law.
Which is so well confirmed that not even you will question it.
Or do you? :-)

But since you find the verbal description above unconvincing,
(you didn't understand it, did you?) let's do the calculation properly.

As the primary, measured data, I will use the temperature in fig. 4.3 in:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf
and the radius curve in fig 3 in:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The question is: What will the K (2.2u) and V (0.5u) light curves be
according to Planck's blackbody radiation law?

The result is shown in the table below. Here a
Int = the surface radiation intensity relative to the intensity at phase 0.
Lum = the luminosity (intensity*area) relative to the luminosity at phase 0.
Mag = the magnitude relative to the magnitude at phase 0.

The Intensity is calculated from Planck's black body radiation law.
Planck(T,lambda). (Look it up if you don't know it.)
K Int = Planck(T,2.2u)/Planck(5600,2.2u)
V int = Planck(T,0.5u)/Planck(5600,0.5u)

Phase: 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Temp: 5600 5550 5250 5050 4950 4900 4850 4950 5050 5400
Radius: 2.78 2.88 3.10 3.20 3.20 3.15 3.08 2.95 2.77 2.62
Area: 1.00 1.07 1.24 1.32 1.32 1.28 1.23 1.13 0.99 0.89
K Int: 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.94
K lum: 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.11 1.07 1.02 0.95 0.91 0.83 0.83
K mag: 0.00 -0.06 -0.12 -0.11 -0.07 -0.02 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.20
V Int: 1.00 0.95 0.71 0.57 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.57 0.83
V lum: 1.00 1.02 0.88 0.76 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.73
V mag: 0.00 -0.03 0.14 0.31 0.43 0.53 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.34

Compare K mag and V mag to the curves in fig.1 in
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The fit is so good that one could think I have cheated.
But I haven't. You can check the calculations yourself,
if you don't believe me.
The fit is good simply because Planck's black body radiation law
is correct, and a Cepheid is what it is known to be - a pulsating star.

Do you still find Planck's blackbody radiation law nonsensical, Henri?

Paul

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Henri Wilson wrote:
: Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
:
: Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: variation due to the changing temperature is much
: bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).

Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.

I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.

Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: :
: : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).
:
: Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
:
: I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.
:
: Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?

ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen" of :
Agder University College (HiA)
Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00 Fax
(+47) 38 14 10 01
has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
sci.physics.relativity
in message
...

"The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
and intensities
of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler shift."

The all time classic:


"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen

The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.

yawn

Androcles wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: :
: : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).
:
: Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
:
: I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.
:
: Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?

ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen" of :
Agder University College (HiA)
Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00 Fax
(+47) 38 14 10 01
has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
sci.physics.relativity
in message
...

"The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
and intensities
of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler shift."

The all time classic:

"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen


Thanks for being so kind as to repeat my correct statements.
It isn't really necessary, though.
Everybody but retarded drunks will find both statements rather obvious.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : ...
: : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : :
: : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).
: :
: : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: :
: : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.
: :
: : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
:
: ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen" of :
: Agder University College (HiA)
: Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00 Fax
: (+47) 38 14 10 01
: has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: sci.physics.relativity
: in message
: ...
:
: "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
: and intensities
: of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler shift."
:
: The all time classic:
:
: "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
:
:
The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
yawn

: Thanks for being so kind as to repeat my correct statements.
: It isn't really necessary, though.
: Everybody but retarded drunks will find both statements rather obvious.
:
I thought you were a troll, Tusseladd, but if you say you are a retarded
drunk
I'm not going to argue, obviously.

--
'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to
agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you
dare question it. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B doesn't equal the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A in the stationary system, obviously.' --
Heretic Jan Bielawski, assistant light-bulb changer.

Ref: ups.com


"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without
evidence." -- Uncle Stooopid.


"Counterfactual assumptions yield nonsense.
If such a thing were actually observed, reliably and reproducibly, then
relativity would immediately need a major overhaul if not a complete
replacement." -- Humpty Roberts.

Rabbi Albert Einstein in 1895 failed an examination that would
have allowed him to study for a diploma as an electrical engineer
at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zurich
(couldn't even pass the SATs).

According to Phuckwit Duck it was geography and history that Einstein
failed on, as if Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule would give a
damn. That tells you the lengths these lying *******s will go to to
protect their tin god, but its always a laugh when they slip up.
Trolls, the lot of them.

"This is PHYSICS, not math or logic, and "proof" is completely
irrelevant." -- Humpty Roberts.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
:

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message
: : ...
: : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : :
: : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).
: :
: : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: :
: : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.
: :
: : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
:
: ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen" of :
: Agder University College (HiA)
: Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00 Fax
: (+47) 38 14 10 01
: has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: sci.physics.relativity
: in message
: ...
:
: "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative positions
: and intensities
: of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler shift."
:
: The all time classic:
:
: "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: or:
: tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
:
:
The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
yawn

Here's how I look at it.

If one packs up and launches from the E frame, going at velocity v,
towards a star d light-years away, then turns around and comes back,
one gets the following.

E-frame: S-frame:

(0,0) - (0,0) [the start]
(d,t) - ((d-vt)*g, (t-vd/c^2)*g) [the halfway point of the trip]

where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the usual gamma.

Since the traveller never leaves his ship but both ship and traveller
reach the star, d-vt = 0. This means t = d/v and Androcles should be
more than happy. Of course t and d are measured in E-frame anyway.

However, (t-vd/c^2)*g = tau is an interesting quantity; it works out
to be (t-v^2t/c^2)*g = t/g, and therefore tau t. Subjective time
has squished, according to the predictions of SR.

If the traveller turns around and comes back, he takes 2tau total,
whereas the Earthbound twin takes 2t total. Average velocity of
the traveller is of course 0, though average *speed* is not -- but
the traveller still is younger.

Not all that obvious of a result, actually.


: Thanks for being so kind as to repeat my correct statements.
: It isn't really necessary, though.
: Everybody but retarded drunks will find both statements rather obvious.
:
I thought you were a troll, Tusseladd, but if you say you are a retarded
drunk
I'm not going to argue, obviously.



--
#191,
/dev/signature/pedantry: Resource temporarily unavailable

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 00:07:51 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
-
The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
yawn

Here's how I look at it.

If one packs up and launches from the E frame, going at velocity v,
towards a star d light-years away, then turns around and comes back,
one gets the following.

E-frame: S-frame:

(0,0) - (0,0) [the start]
(d,t) - ((d-vt)*g, (t-vd/c^2)*g) [the halfway point of the trip]

where g=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) is the usual gamma.

Since the traveller never leaves his ship but both ship and traveller
reach the star, d-vt = 0. This means t = d/v and Androcles should be
more than happy. Of course t and d are measured in E-frame anyway.

However, (t-vd/c^2)*g = tau is an interesting quantity; it works out
to be (t-v^2t/c^2)*g = t/g, and therefore tau t. Subjective time
has squished, according to the predictions of SR.

If the traveller turns around and comes back, he takes 2tau total,
whereas the Earthbound twin takes 2t total. Average velocity of
the traveller is of course 0, though average *speed* is not -- but
the traveller still is younger.

Not all that obvious of a result, actually.

Gord I feel genuinely sorry for you poor deluded relativists...!
You aren't a bad bunch really.....
-



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.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Sat, 01 Sep 2007 14:03:45 GMT
: :
:
: "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
: : ...
: : : Androcles wrote:
: : : "Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
: message
: : : ...
: : : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : : Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
: : : :
: : : : Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
: : : : If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
: : : : from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
: : : : variation due to the changing temperature is much
: : : : bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band
2.2u).
: : :
: : : Everything is "obvious". Obviously you are a lunatic.
: : :
: : : I note with a yawn that Androcles doesn't find the obvious
: : : consequence of Planck's black body radiation law to be obvious.
: : :
: : : Nothing is obvious in a haze, is it?
: :
: : ASSistant Professor "Paul B. Andersen" of :
: : Agder University College (HiA)
: : Serviceboks 422, N-4604 Kristiansand, NORWAY Tel (+47) 38 14 10 00
Fax
: : (+47) 38 14 10 01
: : has executed the biggest fumble ever seen in the history of
: : sci.physics.relativity
: : in message
: : ...
: :
: : "The spectral class [of stars] is determined by the relative
positions
: : and intensities
: : of the absorption lines, and these are unaffected by a Doppler
shift."
: :
: : The all time classic:
: :
: : "That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
: : which is the same as interchanging the frames,
: : which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
: : OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
: : t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : or:
: : tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
: : xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
: :
: :
: The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
: yawn
:
: Here's how I look at it.

[snip wrong argument]

.... reach the star, d-vt = 0.

The Andersen Transforms are d+vt 0.
The faster you go the longer it takes to get there, OBVIOUSLY.
yawn

sorOn Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:17:23 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 23:14:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
Explain the 90 deg phase lag then George.
Not hard at all to explain why the curves are different.
If the radius of the star didn't change, it is obvious
from Planck's blackbody equation that the luminosity
variation due to the changing temperature is much
bigger in visible light (V-band) than it is in IR (K-band 2.2u).
So since the radius changes as well, it is clear that
the luminosity variation due to the changing surface area
will be relatively more important in IR than it is in visible light.
That's why the IR-light curve has it maximum and minimum
at ca. phase 0.4 and 0.9 respectivly, just like the angular
diameter curve.
Compare fig 2 (K-mag) and fig2 and 3.
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The V light curve will be more dominated by the temperature,
which has its maximum and minimum at phase 1 and 0.65 respectively.
Compare fig 2. (V-mag) in document above to fig 4.7 in document
below:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/26q3xh

...and I'm sure you could produce an equally nonsensical theory if the
published figures were entirely diffent.

The 'nonsensical' theory is Planck's black body radiation law.
Which is so well confirmed that not even you will question it.
Or do you? :-)

It is reasonably well confirmed. What isn't confirmed is whether or not the
average cepheid has a black body spectrum. Nor has it been confirmed that its
spectrum would remain black body if it went 'huff puff' all day long.

But since you find the verbal description above unconvincing,
(you didn't understand it, did you?) let's do the calculation properly.

As the primary, measured data, I will use the temperature in fig. 4.3 in:
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitst....0014whole.pdf

That's a bloody PhD thesis....Do you really think a Phd student is going to
stand up and announce that the whole of astronomy is bull**** because it is
based on all starlight traveling to little planet Earth at precisely speed 'c'?
Of course not Tussellad...

All the information used there is willusory...the paper is full of speculative
remarks made by a poor bugger who obviously trying to match one lot of nonsense
with more nonsense...

.....so you are already on the wrong track....


and the radius curve in fig 3 in:
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

Interferometry relies on all starlight moving at constant c wrt Earth.
Since that is not true, the technique can best be regarded as highly suspect.
The published cuvre is lousy anyway...nothing like a best fit....

The question is: What will the K (2.2u) and V (0.5u) light curves be
according to Planck's blackbody radiation law?

The result is shown in the table below. Here a
Int = the surface radiation intensity relative to the intensity at phase 0.
Lum = the luminosity (intensity*area) relative to the luminosity at phase 0.
Mag = the magnitude relative to the magnitude at phase 0.

The Intensity is calculated from Planck's black body radiation law.
Planck(T,lambda). (Look it up if you don't know it.)
K Int = Planck(T,2.2u)/Planck(5600,2.2u)
V int = Planck(T,0.5u)/Planck(5600,0.5u)

Phase: 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Temp: 5600 5550 5250 5050 4950 4900 4850 4950 5050 5400
Radius: 2.78 2.88 3.10 3.20 3.20 3.15 3.08 2.95 2.77 2.62
Area: 1.00 1.07 1.24 1.32 1.32 1.28 1.23 1.13 0.99 0.89
K Int: 1.00 0.98 0.89 0.84 0.81 0.79 0.78 0.81 0.84 0.94
K lum: 1.00 1.06 1.11 1.11 1.07 1.02 0.95 0.91 0.83 0.83
K mag: 0.00 -0.06 -0.12 -0.11 -0.07 -0.02 0.05 0.11 0.20 0.20
V Int: 1.00 0.95 0.71 0.57 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.51 0.57 0.83
V lum: 1.00 1.02 0.88 0.76 0.67 0.61 0.55 0.57 0.57 0.73
V mag: 0.00 -0.03 0.14 0.31 0.43 0.53 0.64 0.61 0.62 0.34

Compare K mag and V mag to the curves in fig.1 in
http://www.arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-.../0402244v1.pdf

The fit is so good that one could think I have cheated.
But I haven't. You can check the calculations yourself,
if you don't believe me.
The fit is good simply because Planck's black body radiation law
is correct, and a Cepheid is what it is known to be - a pulsating star.

It is highly possible that some stars DO pulsate. The fact that their
brigthness curves match those of stars in an elliptical orbit of e ~ 0.15-.25
and yaw angle -50-70 is purely coincidental.

Do you still find Planck's blackbody radiation law nonsensical, Henri?

Planck's law was empirically derived for what is assumed to be a perfect black
body.
Stars vary considerably and not many fit that curve well at all.


Paul



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.