Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Henri Wilson replied to Leonard Kellogg:

Henri Wilson said to George Dishman:

I have agreed that the extinction distance appears to
depend on star period and star proximity.

And I have said that the light speed unification distance
is inversely proportional to rate of bunching. The more
rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the unification
distance. That applies to all light sources. It applies
to pulsars, white dwarfs, red giants, cepheids, and main
sequence stars. It applies to light sources bouncing back
and forth on springs. It applies to infrared LIDAR and
radio-frequency RADAR emitted by police speed measurement
devices and reflected from moving vehicles. It applies to
light and radio signals sent from or received on aircraft
in flight. It applies to radio signals from satellites in
Earth orbit, rovers on the surface of Mars, and Cassini
orbiting Saturn.

The more rapidly the light bunches, the shorter the
unification distance. Always.

The rate of bunching is proportional to the radial acceleration
at the section of the orbit where the pulses/photon were emitted.

Yes, we already know that. I was pointing out something
that you appear not to have picked up on yet.

For orbits with the same eccentricity, that is also proportional
to the peripheral velocity at the same phase. (for instance at
periastron)

Again, we already know that. I was pointing out something
about the unification distance that you apparently still
haven't noticed.

It's a simple average of all the points at that phase
Henry, stop whining.

Well it all sounds pretty suspect to me.

It is an elementary school level problem.

It is like measuring your height once an hour during the
day for a week, then averaging the measurements together.
You measure your height immediately after arising, again
an hour later, and so on. After a week you sum all the
measurements made just after arising and divide the result
by seven, then you sum all the measurements made an hour
after arising and divide the result by seven, and so on.
When you graph the results you have a chart showing how
your height changes during the day.

Another way of achieving exactly the same result is to
plot all of the individual measurements and then draw a
smooth curve which most closely matches the data points.

What has this to do with extinction?

Nothing. I commented on two different things in my post.
The first was the dependence of extinction distance on the
rate of bunching, while the second was your concern that
averaging of measurements taken over a number of cycles
sounds pretty suspect to you.

Leonard