Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:33:14 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:08:23 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message


Of course it can Henry, that's the point. Suppose
we take an arbitrary figure of 10 light years
for the speed equalisation distance in the space
surrounding some star. To get 1.5 mag variation
you need a critical distance of 13.35 light years.
To get 9 mag that needs to be 10.0025 light years,
just a 25% increase in the peak orbital
acceleration.

What the hell are you talking about?

Check the numbers, see for yourself. For a given
value of peak acceleration, draw a graph of peak
variation as a function of distance.

What do you think my program does?

If you think it can tell you the above results,
use it. Tell me what distance as a percentage
of (c^2/a) you get a variation peak variation
of 8 magnitudes (peak-to-peak will be about
0.75 magnitudes more).

Tell me whether you would get multiple images if
the distance were 1% greater.

If that is at an inclination of 45 degrees, would
we see multiple images if it were 1 degree closer
to edge-on?

It never gets to that point.
I have suggested before that the unification rate in any defineable volume of
space is dependent on the difference between the actual light speed and the
natural equilibrium speed in that region.

Your numbers are completely wrong...

Then use your program and post your alternatives.

You can use it. It's quite user friendly now.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe

George


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm