>On Jul 21, 5:45 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 11:23:32 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>> >On Jul 20, 3:32 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
>> >> George, use you head.

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

>> >This so-called "explanation" of yours is massively stupid,
>> >even considered in context of your own BaTh theory.

>> >Considered in the context of BaTh, the difference in
>> >amplitude of the K-band and V-band luminosity curves,
>> >0.3 mag versus 0.7 mag, would imply roughly proportional
>> >differences in the velocities and accelerations of the
>> >infrared and visible light emitting layers of the star.
>> >On average, your hypothetical V-band layer would experience
>> >velocities 10 km/sec or so greater than your hypothetical
>> >K-band layer. Over the course of a complete cycle, that
>> >implies that K-band light must be emitted from -millions-
>> >pf kilometers beneath the surface of the star.

>> No, another factor must be considered. The light from a
>> lower layer will experience unification as it passes through
>> the outer ones.

>Of course! That is precisely what I wrote below, or hadn't
>you noticed?

>Extinction would occur within a distance estimated by
>lambda/(1-n) (Fox 1967). Millions of kilometers below the
>surface of the photosphere, this estimated distance would
>be very small. As the works its way to the outer surface,
>it will join up with light from light from shallower emission
>layers. All light emitted from the surface of the star will
>be emitted at the same speed c with respect to the surface.

>In other words, there is NO WAY for this hypothesis of yours
>to explain the distinct differences in shape, amplitude and
>phase of the K-band versus the V-band luminosity curves.

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

>> Stick with the medicine Jerry and leave the physics to us...

>> >You can't win, Henri. The maze of ad hoc kludges that you've
>> >constructed to prop up your dead theory is so full of
>> >contradictions, it's not funny.

>> The BaTh analysis reveals many previously unknown secrets
>> about these stars.
>> It is not inconceivable that the two spectal bands involve
>> TWO separate stars, one orbiting the other.

>Why do you refuse to consider the -simplest- explanation, which
>is that the star changes temperature, and hence color, as it
>expands and contracts?

>Jerry