The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
on Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:41:36 +0200

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Paul B. Andersen
on Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:34:52 +0200

The spectral class determines the temperature.

To a certain precision, yes. Is there a table mapping the two?

Sure. You can find a graph here: page 6 and 7

Not bad...for a graph.

This is related to how to classify a spectrum:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

The two hypotheses are as follows.

[1] Cepheids are pulsating stars.

And this "hypothesis" is proven beyond reasonable doupt. It is as close to a fact as it can get.

Absent more data.  Admittedly, it would take a *lot* of data
showing otherwise.

Data aren't absent.

I did say *more* data.  :-)

Cepheids have been studied for close to a century.
Thousands of papers are written.
That it isn't easy to find the raw data on the net
doesn't mean they don't exist.
Astronomers aren't idiots, you know.

No, but they are apparently a little reticent.  Can't say
I blame them too much.

A vast amount of raw data is indeed available in several archives. They may not be open to the public, though. and many, many more.

No Astronomer question that Cepheids are pulsating stars.
because the spectra tell an unambiguous story.

Why don't you question Newton's laws of motion?
Have you seen the raw data supporting it?

I've seen experimental conclusions against it.
At relativistic speeds Newton's laws do not apply (among
them velocity addition when shifting frames), to the great
consternation of Androcles, H. Wilson, and others.

You are wrong. Newton's laws of motion are still valid, relativistic mechanics is based on them. All you have to do is to remember that Newton's 2. law is F = dp/dt, not F = ma.

It is Newtonian Mechanics that is falsified,
not Newton's laws of motion.

You could say it like this:
Relativistic mechanics =
      Newton's laws of motion + Lorentzian relativity
Newtonian mechanics =
      Newton's laws of motion + Galilean relativity

LHC in particular is specced for lightspeed movement of protons,
despite said protons being far more energetic than lightspeed
protons (in Newtonian space) have a right to be -- 7 TeV versus
about .469 GeV (1/2 the energy equivalent of m_p).  I'd say
the conclusion is pretty obvious that the LHC designers aren't
using Newtonian ballistic theory... :-)

Of course at the level of a traffic accident -- 10^-7 c or
thereabouts -- the error in using Newton's Laws is about
5 * 10^-15; the traffic cop or SuperBall(tm) designer needn't
worry overly much. :-)

And Newton's Third still applies, in some form.

They all applies. It is Galilean relativity that does not apply.

[2] Cepheids are eclipsing binaries.

Who says so? Not Androcles. Not Henri Wilson.

You are the only one I have seen propose it.

In that case I'm misinterpreting Androcles.  I'll admit
to some curiosity as to how an orbiting binary pair
in nBat-space (or Newtonian space) will actually *look*,
given the issues of gas molecular motion and light delay,
but it probably won't look like observations of Delta Cephei. :-)

Actually I have studied that in some detail. I won't bother to get into it now, I will only say that thousands of known binaries which are NOT variables should according to the ballistic theory have been so.

The "temperature effects" will have the effect to make
a minimum possible period depending on the distance.
Most Cepheids are so distant that the short observed period
should be impossible according to the ballistic theory.

In short, according to the ballistic theory
binaries which are not variables should have been so,
and Cepheids which are variables should not have been so.

And then there's binary Cepheids, which I assume are common enough;
we might get lucky and see an *eclipsing* binary Cepheid someday,
if we haven't already.

We have:

(And then there's such things as PSR B1913+16 and PSR
J0737-3039.  No, neither is a Cepheid -- both are orbiting
pairs of neutron stars, and both are very conclusive
disproofs of nBaT.  I don't know regarding BaT but I think
it disproves that, too.

Paul .