Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 3 Jul, 13:19, bz wrote:
HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:rmcj83puhpk8l09pclb7ubl18ieb5khjcm@
4ax.com:

Ah, I see your problem.

You aren't taking account of the sequential emission delays between the
'pulses'. That is fundamental to the bunching calculations.

You are assuming they are all emitted at the same instant.

you do realize that, for the velocities involved in your typical variable
star, the delta v (change in velocity of the emission source) between the
'front end' and the 'back end' of the photon, during the time it takes to
emit a photon, is essentially zero, don't you?

[this is true whether one considers the photon length to be the same as the
wave length or millions of wavelengths.]

You have to remember Henry is using a classical
concept for a photon, so it is the latter
"millions of wavelengths" definition you have
to use. The change of launch speed between the
ends is therefore just the time taken multiplied
by the average acceleration over those cycles.
That blows Henry's model out of the water since
the spectral shift has to match the 'photon
bunching' because the mechanism that bunches
phtotons also bunches the cycles within a photon
by the same factor. The correspondence is that
an orbital speed of 300km/s (fastest contact
binary) should give a luminosity variation of
just +/- 0.001 magnitudes.

That's why Henry added another ad hoc bodge to
the theory of photons being incompresible, but
that doesn't work when you consider a simple
pulse-modulated monochromatic source. Sadly
Henry doesn't know enough about RF or audio
to follow that argument and ended up going
off on tangents about white light, but the
evidence is still there.

George