Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:11:56 GMT, "Dumbledore"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
[snip] http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...WilsonFake.JPG This
message is for *your* personal safety, brought to *you* by Dumbledore, the
computer of Androcles, having passed my Turing Test using Uncle Phuckwit for
a guinea pig. How is my driving? Call 1-800-555-1234
http://www.carmagneticsigns.co.uk/im...l/P_Plates.jpg Worn with pride.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-plate



PP plater....Permanently ****ed...

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message ...

I give up! It's just impossible to keep a sensible discussion with you....
Go on living in your dream world, and I hope you're happy there.

Sour grapes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes

Typical ****head!

On Feb 11, 2:42 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
I give up! It's just impossible to keep a sensible discussion with you....
Go on living in your dream world, and I hope you're happy there.

Just one final note:

## If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
## executable programs!
#
# It will be published in due course.
# Nobody will be able to understand it though.

If so, you're not doing science. Science is about making your findings
understandable to others. If "nobody will be able to understand it",
why even bother publishing it? Do you even understand it yourself?

Check out:
http://tinyurl.com/8hah7
http://tinyurl.com/46u8s

"Arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss
all evidence or arguments which contradict his cranky belief."

Bye!

*PLONK*


Keep in mind that this is music to Henri's ears. He really would
rather not have to discuss his thinking at all -- he knows it's
slipshod. He just would like to toss out things he thinks sound clever
and have no one challenge him. This is called "pontification without a
point". Eventually he retreats to something that he knows sounds
eerily like a chicken squawk.

PD

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:



Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?

You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.

True.

That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
part of the orbit.

False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.

No theat's not relativity. That's a WIlsonian example of circular logic:

Let w always = c, by postulate.

Therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/(1+v/c)
= (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)


The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
effect.

Did you actually compute this? Or did you just use your prejudice?

Doppler shift is generally of the order of 1 in 10^4 or less.
Star magnitude changes atributed to BaTh are as high as about 20 (linear, not
log)
I think even you should be able to recognize the difference

Yes, in relativity too, an
approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
brightnesses will be quite small.

In this case, negligible

Yes -- just as in bath.... there's no way a radial velocity change
of just some tens of km/s could produce a brightness change of the
order of one stellar magnitude.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I will explain what happens once again.

All stars are in some kind of orbit, some are in short period orbits. These are
generally called binaries. The companion can be either hot or cold and
invisible...large or small.

Both objects revolve around a common barycentre. That centre has a velocity wrt
Earth.

At any instant, light emitted by the hot star moves at (c+v).cos(f(t)) relative
to the barycentre, towards Earth. Here, v is the peripheral velocity of the
star around its orbit. Its component in the earth direction is a function of
time, determined by the orbit parameters, mainly eccentricity, yaw and pitch.

It can be seen that all the light emitted in the direction of Earth is moving
at different speeds wrt the barycentre as the star rotates. As it traverses
space, half of it moves up on the other half ...at differing rates.

The long term result is a 'bunching' effect. When the beam reaches an Earth
observer, the observed intensity varies with time as the spatially regular
'bunching pattern' moves past.

The Earth's movement has a negligible effect on the spatial pattern, which
forms over great distances. It merely results in a quite small yearly cycle of
doppler shift.

Get it now?

and have discovered that light moves at c wrt its source and
at c+v wrt planet Earth for most of its journey through space.

Yet you also say:

# There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
# moving stars.

Are you really this stupid or just trying to waste my time?

I am not MEASURING OWLS. I am merely demonstrating that light from differently
moving sources DOES NOT move at the same speed....as Einstein claimed.

How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?

It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.

Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......

I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.

How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?

Easily.
I measure the DIFFERENCE in their travel times over a set distance.

In the case of light, I use an optical gate at the far end and a single CRO at
the other.

However, as I have tried to explain, a very fast source is needed...much too
fast for lab conditions.
I'll let you do the sums.

I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much

On Feb 11, 2:17 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?

You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.

True.

That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
part of the orbit.

False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.

No theat's not relativity. That's a WIlsonian example of circular logic:

Let w always = c, by postulate.

Therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/(1+v/c)
= (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)

Apparently you have never heard of Hyperbolic geometry then, Ralph.
You should look into it, Poincare contributed a fair bit to its'
development.

[...]


It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.

Are you aware that simulations who have hidden program sources and
methodology are ignored?

Oh, no. Of course not. You have no experience with anything, Ralph.


Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......

I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.

How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?

Easily.
I measure the DIFFERENCE in their travel times over a set distance.

In the case of light, I use an optical gate at the far end and a single CRO at
the other.

However, as I have tried to explain, a very fast source is needed...much too
fast for lab conditions.

Really? The speed of light is too fast for a lab measurment?

Come on Ralph, that is an undergraduate lab experiment.

I'll let you do the sums.

I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?

It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.


But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
science and technology.

--
-Coffee Boy- = Preferably white, with two sugars
Saucerheads - denying the blatantly obvious since 2000.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:35:27 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck
wrote:

In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?

It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.


But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
science and technology.

Listen fiddlephuck, do you deny that my demo:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe

accurately illustrates the second postulate of Einstein?

On Feb 11, 8:18 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:35:27 +0000, Phineas T Puddleduck

wrote:
In article , HW@....(Henri Wilson)
wrote:

How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?

It's called SIMULATION....a technique used widely in science and technology.

But yet you don't post the algorithms you use - a technique NOT widely used in
science and technology.

Listen fiddlephuck, do you deny that my demo:

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe

accurately illustrates the second postulate of Einstein?

Woosh! POINT GOES RIGHT OVER YOUR HEAD!

Nobody has any reason whatsoever to believe the word of Ralph
Rabbidge, aka Henri Wilson the compulsive liar.

In article .com,
PD wrote:
On Feb 11, 2:42 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
I give up! It's just impossible to keep a sensible discussion with you....
Go on living in your dream world, and I hope you're happy there.

Just one final note:

## If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
## executable programs!
#
# It will be published in due course.
# Nobody will be able to understand it though.

If so, you're not doing science. Science is about making your findings
understandable to others. If "nobody will be able to understand it",
why even bother publishing it? Do you even understand it yourself?

Check out:
http://tinyurl.com/8hah7
http://tinyurl.com/46u8s

"Arguing with the crank is useless, because he will invariably dismiss
all evidence or arguments which contradict his cranky belief."

Bye!

*PLONK*

Keep in mind that this is music to Henri's ears. He really would
rather not have to discuss his thinking at all -- he knows it's
slipshod. He just would like to toss out things he thinks sound clever
and have no one challenge him. This is called "pontification without a
point". Eventually he retreats to something that he knows sounds
eerily like a chicken squawk.

PD

I'm fully aware that whatever I do it'll be music to Henri's ears. If
I continue discussing with him, he gets attention and he'll enjoy
that. And if I stop wasting time on pointless discussions with him,
he'll think he "won" the discussion, and that too he'll enjoy a lot.

But there's another point of view involved he how much more time am
*I* willing to waste on pointless discussions with Henri? Not much, I
can tell you that! I have better things to do.

Henri's tactics is to claim he's got a new revolutionary theory but he
doesn't reveal what it's all about. All he says is "run the exe",
"it's very complicated", "no-one will understand it". That kind of
crackpot is described in Gardner's classic "Fads and fallacies in the
names of science": their ideas are so far-fetched that others lose
their interest and they end up talking to just themselves. And since
nobody oppose their ideas anymore, they take that as "proof" that
they're right. Today's crackpot does have a tool which was
unavailable to most people in Gardner's time: they can hide their
ideas in a computer program, distributed as an executable file only,
and then say "run the program, and all your questions will be
answered" -- just as if blindly trusting the output of some black box
would help you understand anything. Fortunately, those people who
blindly trust computer output are getting fewer.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

On Feb 10, 1:28 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,
Henri Wilson HW@....... wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:42:17 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:

There isn't one believable experiment that supports SR..

The ones we read about are all part of the religious promotion.

If so, why don't you just redo some of these experiments, to get
results which contradict relativity? Basically, you're here claiming
these experimental results are all faked in a process of religious
propaganda - redoing the experiments would quickly reveal such a
situation. Any erroneous religious promption can be refuted by
observations and experimentation.

many of the so called 'supporting experiments' were performed in the
sixties. Why do you think nobody repeats them?

For the same reason that nobody today repeats experiment to prove that
the Earth is not flat.... well, these experiments are sometimes
performed for educational purposes in elementary school, but never in
science. Science makes progress you know - therefore it doesn't
endlessly repeat the old experiments over and over again.

Hahahahhohohohoh!
What a pathetic attempt to wriggle out....

How many of these orbits have been recorded which you know about? And
how many would you expect to have been recorded?

I wouldn't like to put a figure on it.

Why not? Don't you know how many of these orbit you know about? Why so
evasive?

No response .....

I would expect that many binary pairs would been recorded as having
'changed places' over twenty years or so.

Indeed they have .... however the word "many" is a quite fuzzy term and
could mean anything from more than, say, 3, to millions.....

....but don't worry about it. I doubt if anyone has seriously looked
over long time spans.

Binary stars have been measured for centuries .... is that time long
enough for you? A number of them have been observed through several
full revolutions in their orbits. Sirius (the brightest star in our
skies) is a double star which have been observed through more than
three full orbital revolutions.

Yes I'm aware of that. It also has another companion with a very long term
period.

If you're aware of that many has seriously looked at binary stars over
long periods, you ought to realize you have nothing to worry about here.

Yes, I am quite aware.

You are indeed overconfident --- however if you also want to convince
others and not just devote yourself to intellectual masturbation, you
need to present evidence rather than just big words through your big
mouth.

What do you think I've been doing. (on sci.physics.relativity)

Babbling I suppose - to satisfy nobody but yourself.

Well my ability to produce star brightness curves based on c+v is pretty
convincing.

Did you also simulate then using relativity?

What would be the point?

Didn't you want to prove Einstein wrong?

Astronomers are completely lost in regard to finding reasons for variable
stars. They are making up all kinds of outrageous theories when the simple fact
is that all the starlight in the universe is NOT adjusted by the fairies to
travel at exactly c wrt little planet Earth.
Light moves at c wrt its source and at c+v wrt a moving observer. In the case
of an orbiting star, the fast c+v light continuosly moves up on the slower,
resulting in bunching. De Sitter's 'proof' that this is wrong is now itself
known to be completely wrong. Multiple images are never seen because of
'extinction' in the vast regions of space.

Suppose you have two theories, A and B. You want to refute theory A
because you believe in theory B. So you produce predictions with
theory A _and_ theory B, and compare these predictions with
observations.

If the prediction by theory B but not theory A match the observations,
you have succeeded in refuting theory A.

If the prediction by theory A but not theory B match the observations,
you have refuted theory B and should discard it.

If predictions of both theories A and B match the observations, you
cannot use that particular observation to decide which of theories A
and B are correct.

Sorry, you are not making sense.
You haven't any idea what I am talking about.
You are obsessed with the equation E = h.nu and believe the doppler shift from
relatively moving sources is in some significant way responsible for star
brightness variation. It is not....and this is not rrelated to the effect I am
discussing.



But you do something different: you compare theory B only with
observations and conclude they match - then you discard theory A
without even bother to look at the predictions provided by that
theory. And it seems like you don't even understand why you should
examine the predictions by theory A before discarding it. There's a
name for that: it's called prejudice.

The point of also examining the theory you want to discard is to
avoid being accused for prejudice....

SR has led astronomers on a wild goose chase. They are completely lost in a
maze of way out theories.
The BaTh explains most star brightness curves, simply and soundly.

So which theory should I reject?

Was there any difference in your simulated light curves?

You don't seem to have the faintest idea about any of this. Relativity
says all the light leaving the star travels at c wrt Earth.

True.

That means there is no relative movement between light emitted at any
part of the orbit.

False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.

The order of change you are refering to is minute compared with the BaTh
effect.

Did you actually compute this? Or did you just use your prejudice?

It isn't hard to compute . It's just doppler. I can do it in my head.

Yes, in relativity too, an
approaching light source will appear somewhat brighter -- and at low
speeds compared to light speed, the difference between the two
brightnesses will be quite small.

In this case, negligible

Yes -- just as in bath.... there's no way a radial velocity change
of just some tens of km/s could produce a brightness change of the
order of one stellar magnitude.

Very funny

Run my program.

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

This is a very comprehensive program, written in Vbasic....It requires
windows.. It has no viruses and cannot harm your computer.

# There is NO KNOWN way to measure the OW speed of light...particularly from
# moving stars.

Are you really this stupid or just trying to waste my time?

I am not MEASURING OWLS. I am merely demonstrating that light from differently
moving sources DOES NOT move at the same speed....as Einstein claimed.

How can you verify this claim without doing any measurements?

The 'measurements' have been done. They take the form of star brightness
curves. That's all I need.

Which means you have been unable to measure the speed of light (since
you claim there's no known way to measure it). So how come you
consider yourself knowing the speed of light? You haven't measured
it, and the only way to know it is to measure it......

I am COMPARING different light speeds , dopey, not measuring them.

How can you compare two speeds without measuring them?

Easily.
If they are known to pass a starting point together, then, if they don't arrive
somewhere else together, they must have travelled at different speeds.

In the case of light, the 'starting point' can be a fast optical gate.

I have shown that Einstein's P2 is completely wrong and the acceptance
of his stupid theory by a bunch of gullible fools been the cause of much
confusion in the ranks of astronomers for 100 years.

big laugh ....again, where's your evidence?

Here are some more matched light curves.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg

I asked for _evidence_ !! Not some obscure diagrams without adequate
explanation....

Are you not familiar with brightness curves? I am surprised! You seem to think
you are some kind of expert on everything....but you've obnviously never seen a
star brightness curve....

Just about any published curve is easily matched.
The only known way to check this is to try to simulate their brightness curves
using the assumption that their emitted light moves at c+vcos(t) wrt Earth.....

.....and guess what....the simulations work 100%.

If there's a radial velocity change of X km/s, how big brightess change, in
stellar magnitudes, would that produce according to you? Please supply a formula.

My program does all the sums.
I have now placed the latest version on my website.

You are free to use it to match published curves.

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

Source code, please ..... I don't download binaries from untrusted web sites.

Keep your head in the sand if you wish. The program is mine and cannot harm
your computer. My web site is well known here.

I have to revise te instructions because it is rather hard to use.

This seems to be the #1 fallacy of crackpots: they're so much into
their own ideas that they fail to realize they have to explain what
they're doing, in a clear way, to others if they want support for
their ideas. Or perhaps it's a strategy used by them, since
explaining your ideas clearly imposes a risk: it then becomes easier
for others to point out the flaws in your idea to you.

Run my program...

That's because the radial velocity changes are far too small to
produce any significant brightness changes. The radial velocity
change must be a non-negligible fraction of the speed of light to be
able to produce measureable brightness changes.

You haven't any idea.
You are thinking only in terms of E = h.nu where nu is doppler shifted.
That is not related to the effect caused by 'c+v bunching'...which is much
larger.

How much larger? Please give a formula....

There is NO general formula. There are too many parameters to consider.
...that's why I wrote the program.

The GPS system assumes that relativity is valid, and is able to
produce quite accurate positions of each receivers. GPS is nowadays
used to control e.g. the flight paths of airplanes when landing on
airfields in misty weather conditions when visual landing is
impossible. If the assumption of the validity of relativity by the
GPS system would be erroneous and instead your ballistic theory of
light would be valid, the consequences would be dramatic: airplanes
would miss the runways in the airfields and instead crash in e.g. some
nearby wood. Less dramatic but also quite noticeable would be hikers,
or car drivers, getting lost because their GPS showed them an erroneous
position.

Yes we know all about the so called GR correction of GPS clocks. It has been
discussed at length. I have proved that the clocks actually physically change
when placed in free fall. The effect has nothing whatsoever to do with
relativity.

Then how come the relativistic effects assumed to be valid in GPS does
indeed succeed in producing accurate positions of the GPS receivers?

It is NOT a relativistic effect. the clocks are preadjusted before launch by an
amount that compensates for their rate change in free fall. It just happens to
be close to the GR prediction....but is software fine tuned when the clocks are
in orbit anyway.

I just showed you above that it's quite possible. If the assumption
by the GPS system of the validity of relativity was erroneous, then
the GPS system would fail to produce accurate positions of the GPS
receivers.

The GPS system DOES NOT rely on relativity.

If so, why does it employ relativistic corrections?

They are only called 'relativistic corrections' by relativists.

They are really 'free fall' corrections.

You have already seen this one:www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/and.jpg

Yep -- an obscure figure of yours which for instance lack labels on the axes
telling what they actually represent. Something varies between -0.5 and 0.5
(approxcimately) -- but what is varying?

Star Magnitude is varying,

Why didn't you label the coordinate axes accordingly?

It is a standard convention.

The black dots and lines are the published ones. The
blue dots are my simulation.

Why didn't you add that text to your figure?

Because the figure was originally made for someone else who knew what it
was....and it doesn't matter much anyway.

Even you should be able to see the fit is about as good as one could get.

OK, so you have a simulation which produces these figures. The algorithms
are well hidden within your executable files. Why are you hiding your
algorithms? Why not instead publish them? After all, that's what science
is about: publish your stuff, in enouigh detail for others to be able
to judge whether what you're doing is valid or not. Having some executable
file with closed source produce some figure and call that figure "proof" of
your ideas won't work!

The method is described in the program itself.
The principle is quite simple...the code is extremely difficult.

I will be writing a very large paper on this when I have completed the
program....right now I am in the process of adding to it.

Please redraw that figure more clearly
and label the axes appropriately so one understands what the diagram is supposed
to mean.

It's just a conventional light curve, brightness (up) versus time. The star is
RR Lyr.

Another piece of information missing from your figure.

Look up RR Lyr on google...

# moving stars.

You aren't measuring what you yourself claim is impossible to measure, are you?

you are not making sense any more.
The curves are simulated using the notion that light emitted by orbiting stars
travels at periodically varying light speeds relative to Earth.
Observed curves are easy to match. Therefore there is good evidence that light
speed is NOT constant c wrt Earth.

Not until you've provided good evidence which such small radial velocity
changes (compared to light speed) should produce such large brightness
changes --- PUBLISH YOUR ALGORITHMS!

The program is accurate.

Androcles has created a similar one quite independently and it produces the
same kind of curves.

So where are your data showing most stars in the sky varying by about
a magnitude doe to the Earth's orbital velocity? If you are right, such
variations ought to happen.

They do... but they are far too small to measure.

Likewise, brightness changes due to radial velocity changes in cepheids
will produce brightness changes too small to detect. It's a very similar
situation.

You are talking plain nonsense. You don't know anything about this...

Relativity is just a disguised aether theory.

On the contrary, relativity is an anti-aether theory.

It simply replaced the aether with hte P2.
.

Space is like a very low density turbulent gas. Also present are equally
turbulent 'fields'... whatever they might be.

Even an extremely low density gas would produce a quite noticeable
extinction over intergalactic distances.

That's right. It does.

Could you please give the extinction coefficient in, say, stellar magnitudes
per megaparsec?

I am just in the process of doing this. It appears that unificatiuon rates are
typically around 0.99999 per lightday.

No it doesn't - the fact that GPS works when it assumes relativity is
valid contradicts your assumption.

The GPS system DOES NOT require relativity.

If so, why are relativity included in that system?

I'm still working on the latest version and haven't placed it on the website
yet.

Are you going to post binaries which runs on Linux or Mac as well?

No. You need a wondows based system.
94% of the world's computer are.

Post source code instead, so anyone can examine what you're doing.

Or, even better, source code which anyone can compile on their own
system? Source code has another benefit: one can then oneself verify
that the code does not contain viruses or other malware instead of
merely trusting your word that it doesn't. To be frank, I just don't
download binaries posted on some random website, even if it happens to
be yours -- it's just too risky.

My programs do not contain any viruses.

So you say. There are plenty of viruses out there claiming they
aren't viruses. Of coruse you might tell the truth here, but I don't
want to risk my computer on it. After all, you're just a crackpot
among many other crackpots on the Net.

**** off....
I don't write viruses...

Why does the ballistic 'bunching' cause a so much larger brightness
increase? And, assuming a radial velocity change of X km/s, how many
magnitudes of brightness increase would that cause, according to you?

If you could run my program you would see the principle.

Are you saying you are unable to explain it?

It would take me a long time.
but the principle is simple...

I have not been able to match these with the BaTh even though the curve
shapes CAN be simulated quite precisely and easily for smaller magnitude
changes.

That's easy to fix: just add some proportionality factor, and adjust its
value for each individual star.... g

No I don't cheat.

If so, post a description of your algorithm, instead if hiding it in
executable programs!

It will be published in due course.

You have been saying that for years. Why do you keep delaying, Ralph?

Nobody will be able to understand it though.

Cpheids expand and contract with a speed of the order of magnitude of
10 km/s, often a bit more. I.e. the pulsation speed is of the same
order of magnitude as the orbital veolcity of the Earth. Now, if
these changes in radial velocity of the surfaces of these stars cause
them to vary by about one magnitude in brightness, as you claim, how
come not most stars in our skies vary in brightness by the same
amount, with a period of exactly one Earth year, due to varying radial
velocity produced by the Earth's motion? Note that it's the relative
motion between the stellar surface and the observer which counts here,
and a radial velocity change of the stellar surface should produce
the same brightness change, no matter if the radial velocity change is
due to the pulsation of the star, or due to the orbital motion of
the Earth.

No you simply don't get it. The speeds ""relative to the star""" prevail for
the majority of the distance to Earth.

When the Earth moves in its orbit around the Sun, ALL of the Earth follows
this orbital motion. Therefore the "majority of the distance to Earth"
does indeed have a radial velocity change with a period of one Earth
year and an amplitude of +- 30 km/s.

Sorry, but you just ran into an intellectual dead-end here. Your BaTH just
doesn't produce these large brightness variations - if it did, most
stars in the sky would also vary in brightness with an amplitude of
about one magnitude and a period of exactly one Earth year!

You haven't a clue...
Learn something about this or please go away...