Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
Instead there is more or less fusion for the star
luminosity. Fusion can be more or less in a star.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion can
> be more or less in a star.

Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost entirely
due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said so...and I
have done some research myself.
> Mitchell Raemsch

--
-- lover of truth

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:

> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost entirely
> due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said so...and I
> have done some research myself.

The problem for you is that you have not presented any evidence in support of your claim. Talk is cheap.

Money talks and bullshit walks. Show us your bankroll or get out of Dodge.

Uncle John was a bullshotter, just like you! Runs in the family, apparently....

On 5/5/2023 9:42 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>
>> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost entirely
>> due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said so...and I
>> have done some research myself.
>
> The problem for you is that you have not presented any evidence in support of your claim. Talk is cheap.
>
> Money talks and bullshit walks. Show us your bankroll or get out of Dodge.
>
> Uncle John was a bullshotter, just like you! Runs in the family, apparently...

They do say schizophrenia also runs in families.

On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion can
>> be more or less in a star.
>
> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost entirely
> due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said so...and I
> have done some research myself.

Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?

On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:58:33 -0500, whodat wrote:

> On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
>>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
>>> can be more or less in a star.
>>
>> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost
>> entirely due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said
>> so...and I have done some research myself.
>
> Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?

Actually yes. Uncle John often referred to some Russians who had looked
into it but did not have fast computers. Sekerin, I think was one name.

--
-- lover of truth

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:08:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:58:33 -0500, whodat wrote:
>
> > On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
> >> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> >>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
> >>> can be more or less in a star.
> >>
> >> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost
> >> entirely due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said
> >> so...and I have done some research myself.
> >
> > Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?
> Actually yes. Uncle John often referred to some Russians who had looked
> into it but did not have fast computers. Sekerin, I think was one name.

So... no published material that you an reference... gee, I wonder why?

Bullshit much, Jane? I think so... I KNOW so... You've been outed, "Jane"....

On 5/6/2023 8:08 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:58:33 -0500, whodat wrote:
>
>> On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
>>>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
>>>> can be more or less in a star.
>>>
>>> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost
>>> entirely due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said
>>> so...and I have done some research myself.
>>
>> Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?
>
> Actually yes. Uncle John often referred to some Russians who had looked
> into it but did not have fast computers. Sekerin, I think was one name.

Reference to an actual peer reviewed article then? These "near hits"
amount to "near misses."

"Abstract:In the book attached to the letter “Theory of relativity - a
hoax of the twentieth century” on the basis of well-known astronomical
observations and laboratory experiments, the falsehood of the postulate
of the constancy of the speed of light c = const - the basis of the
theory of relativity. Hence, it is proved that the theory of relativity
itself is also a false theory. Further teaching of the theory of
relativity in schools and universities is now a deliberate deception of
schoolchildren and students, and the scientific research conducted on
its basis is falsification."

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Journal%20Reprints/View/8633

This document is classified as a "LETTERS: Experience of
pseudo-scientific correspondence"

I was seeking an article in a peer reviewed journal. which this
document you refereed to is not. Got anything better? Where's the beef?
I found 3 from Sekerin and each was all bun much like your offerings.

If you want to replace Einstein's works I say more power to you, but
this clearly is not how it gets done.

On 5/6/2023 8:15 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:08:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:58:33 -0500, whodat wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
>>>>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
>>>>> can be more or less in a star.
>>>>
>>>> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost
>>>> entirely due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said
>>>> so...and I have done some research myself.
>>>
>>> Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?
>> Actually yes. Uncle John often referred to some Russians who had looked
>> into it but did not have fast computers. Sekerin, I think was one name.
>
> So... no published material that you an reference... gee, I wonder why?
>
> Bullshit much, Jane? I think so... I KNOW so... You've been outed, "Jane"...

The problem, Paul, is not that there are dissenters, but that the
dissenters refuse to abide by the same rules that Einstein followed
in order to get his theories accepted. I encourage Jane and anyone
else of a like mind to advance science past the points that are
currently accepted.

On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:28:42 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> On 5/6/2023 8:15 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:08:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:58:33 -0500, whodat wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> >>>>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
> >>>>> can be more or less in a star.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost
> >>>> entirely due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said
> >>>> so...and I have done some research myself.
> >>>
> >>> Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?
> >> Actually yes. Uncle John often referred to some Russians who had looked
> >> into it but did not have fast computers. Sekerin, I think was one name..
> >
> > So... no published material that you an reference... gee, I wonder why?
> >
> > Bullshit much, Jane? I think so... I KNOW so... You've been outed, "Jane"...

> The problem, Paul, is not that there are dissenters, but that the
> dissenters refuse to abide by the same rules that Einstein followed
> in order to get his theories accepted. I encourage Jane and anyone
> else of a like mind to advance science past the points that are
> currently accepted.

Whodat, they all share the exact same deficiency... no evidence in support of their claims... which leaves all of them pretty much dead in the water....

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.”
― George Carlin

On Sunday, 7 May 2023 at 07:07:55 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 8:28:42 PM UTC-7, whodat wrote:
> > On 5/6/2023 8:15 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Saturday, May 6, 2023 at 6:08:06 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 05 May 2023 21:58:33 -0500, whodat wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On 5/5/2023 7:11 PM, Jane wrote:
> > >>>> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> > >>>>> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
> > >>>>> can be more or less in a star.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost
> > >>>> entirely due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said
> > >>>> so...and I have done some research myself.
> > >>>
> > >>> Anything published on this topic in a peer reviewed journal?
> > >> Actually yes. Uncle John often referred to some Russians who had looked
> > >> into it but did not have fast computers. Sekerin, I think was one name.
> > >
> > > So... no published material that you an reference... gee, I wonder why?
> > >
> > > Bullshit much, Jane? I think so... I KNOW so... You've been outed, "Jane"...
>
> > The problem, Paul, is not that there are dissenters, but that the
> > dissenters refuse to abide by the same rules that Einstein followed
> > in order to get his theories accepted. I encourage Jane and anyone
> > else of a like mind to advance science past the points that are
> > currently accepted.
> Whodat, they all share the exact same deficiency... no evidence in support of their claims... which leaves all of them pretty much dead in the water....

And still the mumble of your idiot guru is inconsistent.

>
> “Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you.

Samely when told of invisible dark matter and other
wonders.

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.

Depends on what you want 'small' to mean.
Some variable stars do change their size
on a timescale of months.
And yes, the star is really 'breathing',
for you can measure the radial velocity by Doppler shift.
The first discovered one is Mira, aka omicron Ceti,
a red supergiant.
Short period variable stars may have periods measured in hours.

> Instead there is more or less fusion for the star
> luminosity. Fusion can be more or less in a star.

Nope. It is only the outer layers that oscillate,

Jan

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:36:33 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> Depends on what you want 'small' to mean.
> Some variable stars do change their size
> on a timescale of months.
> And yes, the star is really 'breathing',
> for you can measure the radial velocity by Doppler shift.
> The first discovered one is Mira, aka omicron Ceti,
> a red supergiant.
> Short period variable stars may have periods measured in hours.
> > Instead there is more or less fusion for the star
> > luminosity. Fusion can be more or less in a star.
> Nope. It is only the outer layers that oscillate,
>
> Jan

A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.

Mitchell Raemsch

On Friday, May 5, 2023 at 5:11:45 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Thu, 04 May 2023 10:34:16 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> > Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion can
> > be more or less in a star.
> Apparent Star brightness variation is a illusion that is almost entirely
> due to variations in the speed of emitted light. My uncle said so...and I
> have done some research myself.
>
> > Mitchell Raemsch
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> -- lover of truth

If star light quantity comes from internal fusion why would the star size matter?
Variable fusion cycles are real.

On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 9:43:36 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.

What evidence do you have to support this claim, Mitch?

mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:36:33?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > mitchr...@gmail.com <mitchr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Stars don't change in size over a small amount of time.
> > Depends on what you want 'small' to mean.
> > Some variable stars do change their size
> > on a timescale of months.
> > And yes, the star is really 'breathing',
> > for you can measure the radial velocity by Doppler shift.
> > The first discovered one is Mira, aka omicron Ceti,
> > a red supergiant.
> > Short period variable stars may have periods measured in hours.
> > > Instead there is more or less fusion for the star
> > > luminosity. Fusion can be more or less in a star.
> > Nope. It is only the outer layers that oscillate,
> >
> > Jan
>
> A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.

Please explain. Those variale stars were discovered
by their variable light output,

Jan

On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Sunday, May 7, 2023 at 4:36:33 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

>> Short period variable stars may have periods measured in hours.
>> > Instead there is more or less fusion for the star luminosity. Fusion
>> > can be more or less in a star.
>> Nope. It is only the outer layers that oscillate,
>>
>> Jan
>
> A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.

Correct...and there is no change in light.
It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.
> Mitchell Raemsch

--
-- lover of truth

On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:37:11 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> > A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.

> Correct...and there is no change in light.
> It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
> varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
> appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.

Jane, Jane, Jane...

" "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
= Will Rogers

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:37:11?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> > On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.
>
> > Correct...and there is no change in light.
> > It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
> > varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
> > appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.
>
> Jane, Jane, Jane...
>
> " "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
> = Will Rogers

Perhaps. There are also other attributions.

However, in this 'Jane' case the second law of holes applies too:
"Even after you stop digging, you are still in a hole",

Jan

On Tue, 09 May 2023 11:49:04 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:37:11?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>> > On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > > A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.
>>
>> > Correct...and there is no change in light.
>> > It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
>> > varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
>> > appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.
>>
>> Jane, Jane, Jane...
>>
>> " "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
>> = Will Rogers
>
> Perhaps. There are also other attributions.
>
> However, in this 'Jane' case the second law of holes applies too:
> "Even after you stop digging, you are still in a hole",

Let me explain. Many pulsating star exhibit brightness fluctuations which
are assumed to be real and caused by adiabatic changes in temperature. Of
course that might occur to a small extent...but my point was that the
MAJORITY of any observed variation is due to variations in emitted light
speed and is not real... Uncle John proved it.
> Jan

--
-- lover of truth

On 5/11/2023 7:27 PM, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2023 11:49:04 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
>> Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:37:11?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.
>>>
>>>> Correct...and there is no change in light.
>>>> It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
>>>> varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
>>>> appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.
>>>
>>> Jane, Jane, Jane...
>>>
>>> " "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
>>> = Will Rogers
>>
>> Perhaps. There are also other attributions.
>>
>> However, in this 'Jane' case the second law of holes applies too:
>> "Even after you stop digging, you are still in a hole",
>
> Let me explain. Many pulsating star exhibit brightness fluctuations which
> are assumed to be real and caused by adiabatic changes in temperature. Of
> course that might occur to a small extent...but my point was that the
> MAJORITY of any observed variation is due to variations in emitted light
> speed and is not real... Uncle John proved it.

Fallacy. Appeal to (perceived) authority.

On Thursday, May 11, 2023 at 5:28:31 PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> On Tue, 09 May 2023 11:49:04 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:37:11?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > > A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.
> >>
> >> > Correct...and there is no change in light.
> >> > It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
> >> > varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
> >> > appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.
> >>
> >> Jane, Jane, Jane...
> >>
> >> " "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
> >> = Will Rogers
> >
> > Perhaps. There are also other attributions.
> >
> > However, in this 'Jane' case the second law of holes applies too:
> > "Even after you stop digging, you are still in a hole",

> Let me explain. Many pulsating star exhibit brightness fluctuations which
> are assumed to be real and caused by adiabatic changes in temperature. Of
> course that might occur to a small extent...but my point was that the
> MAJORITY of any observed variation is due to variations in emitted light
> speed and is not real... Uncle John proved it.

Even "Uncle John" knew that no theory in physics can never be proven... and if you were an actual scientist then you would have known this also...

Jane <Jane@home.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 09 May 2023 11:49:04 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Monday, May 8, 2023 at 4:37:11?PM UTC-7, Jane wrote:
> >> > On Sun, 07 May 2023 09:43:34 -0700, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> > > A star changing in size does not mean there is more light.
> >>
> >> > Correct...and there is no change in light.
> >> > It means the star's emitted light travels to Earth at periodically
> >> > varying speeds and as my good uncle calculated, the result is an
> >> > appearance of brightness variation exactly as observed.
> >>
> >> Jane, Jane, Jane...
> >>
> >> " "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
> >> = Will Rogers
> >
> > Perhaps. There are also other attributions.
> >
> > However, in this 'Jane' case the second law of holes applies too:
> > "Even after you stop digging, you are still in a hole",
>
> Let me explain. Many pulsating star exhibit brightness fluctuations which
> are assumed to be real and caused by adiabatic changes in temperature. Of
> course that might occur to a small extent...but my point was that the
> MAJORITY of any observed variation is due to variations in emitted light
> speed and is not real... Uncle John proved it.

Still digging...,

Jan

On 5/11/2023 9:19 PM, whodat wrote:
> On 5/11/2023 7:27 PM, Jane wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 May 2023 11:49:04 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Jane, Jane, Jane...
>>>>
>>>> " "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."
>>>> = Will Rogers
>>>
>>> Perhaps. There are also other attributions.
>>>
>>> However, in this 'Jane' case the second law of holes applies too:
>>> "Even after you stop digging, you are still in a hole",
>>
>> Let me explain. Many pulsating star exhibit brightness fluctuations which
>> are assumed to be real and caused by adiabatic changes in temperature. Of
>> course that might occur to a small extent...but my point was that the
>> MAJORITY of any observed variation is due to variations in emitted light
>> speed and is not real... Uncle John proved it.
>
> Fallacy. Appeal to (perceived) authority.

Especially when the perceived "authority" is Androclueless.