Limb Darkening

 

One big difference between this and other models is that it acknowledges the high thermal conductivity of supercritical fluids, and therefore wants the average kinetic energy of each particle to be the same. One implication is that limb darkening cannot be attributed to differences in temperature at depth — at least not "temperature" as measured by particle speed. I'm currently saying that all of the particles might have the same kinetic energy, but if the mean free path is different, the frequency of oscillation will be different. So if the surface plasma has a longer mean free path, it will emit redder light, and this is the only light emitted on the limb, while normal to the surface, we see light that originated from deeper, where the mean free path is shorter, and thus the light is bluer. This begs the question of why the plasma at depth would be more compact. I'm saying that it is compacted by gravitational loading, but more significantly, it's closer to the opposite charge that is holding it down, and as a consequence, the electric force is stronger. An alternative explanation is the Compton Effect, where redshifting always occurs proportional to the density of the medium. Thus the light coming from the limb would be the same color as that from the normal, but the limb light has to pass through more of the near-surface plasma than the normal light, so it gets redshifted more.

 

 

Bolometric Correction

 

Then another problem comes up, when all of that is taken within the context of a model that places limits on how big a star can become before it annihilates itself in a runaway thermonuclear explosion, because I'm saying that hotter, brighter, bluer stars are no heavier. And if they're actually more compact, and if the watts emitted are a function of surface area, more compact stars should emit fewer watts, not more. So I introduce this concept of the "effective depth of the radiator" that applies just to plasmas, and which varies with temperature, where hotter plasmas are more transparent. This is feeling more and more like an alleyway that didn't turn out to lead anywhere. It draws no support from other elements in the model, and it doesn't solve any other problems. So it isn't an integral feature of the model — it's just a one-up "explanation" specific to this issue. If that's all it is, at the very least it should be described as such. But it should also be noted that in general, both ionization and density increase opacity. So if I'm saying that the hotter plasma has a greater effective depth (i.e., it's more transparent) because it's more ionized, and because it's more dense, I then have to explain why opacity is different for these plasma BB radiators.

 

Maybe hotter stars do, actually, have greater surface areas than cooler stars, as the standard model maintains. Of course, the SM gets the greater surface area from a more massive star, which I reject. Within the CFDL model, the greater surface area would come from the greater temperature, which causes the plasma to expand, meaning that stars should shrink as they cool, not expand. Then, of course, the mean free path would increase, making the BB frequency slower, offsetting at least some of the effect of the greater particle speed, meaning that the color would be redder than the particle speed would predict. Of course, we don't know the particle speed, so it's a safe bet.

 

 

Miscellaneous

 

I should calculate the particle speed for the various blackbody temperatures, from A thru K class stars. The maximum for the A class is 10,000 K, which is just twice the temperature of the Sun, so the 1.29 × 10⁴ m/s for 5525 K BB radiation becomes 2.58 × 10⁴ m/s, which is no problem. From that I can get the hydrostatic pressure, which will define the strength of the electric force keeping the star organized. If I knew the precise configuration, I could calculate the degree of bulk ionization that it would take to get that kind of force, and then compare it to the degree of ionization for hydrogen at that BB temperature.