Androcles wrote:

"Jesse Mazer" wrote in message
...


I do not have a theory. I have a model, and it is the vector addition
of velocities, too simple to call a theory.
There is nothing in the description above that accounts
for the secondary maxima so commonly observed. At 6000 ly,
there MAY not be enough distance for the faster light to pass the
slower before arriving, it depends on the velocity of the star and
the orbital attitude. I have not seen the curve for T Pix.
Nor can I disprove the above, it is a matter
of plausibility. I don't see the moon sucking up Earth's oceans,
do you? What I do see is the rings of Saturn where a moon once
was, ripped apart by tidal force. Were you aware that the moon
keeps the same face toward the Earth because of tidal force?
How does a less massive star suck matter from the more massive?
It is as plausible as the moon sucking the Earth's oceans dry


from a distance of the GPS constellation.


From the description, it seems to me that it was the central dense
white dwarf which was more massive, and the orbiting star was less
massive, and also that it was in a "close orbit".



Oh, ok. The Earth sucked the water from the lunar seas, the Moon
got tired of being bullied and moved further away.
Got any more good howlers, Dr. Physicist?


No, but the earth isn't very dense, and thus is not very massive. The
earth has a density of about 5 gm/cm^3, while estimates of the density
of white dwarf stars range from 100,000 through 1,000,000,000 gm/cm^3.
If the earth was as dense as a white dwarf, and if the moon had an
atmosphere, then yes, the earth might pull some of that atmosphere away.

Try to actually think through your analogies in the future. Also, you
still didn't answer my question about your own model--if you compare a
recurrent nova at distance R with a companion star of size S with an
ordinary binary star system at distance R with a companion star of size
S, then according to your theory, wouldn't the variations in magnitude
be about the same? I predict that the actual variations in magnitude in
the two cases would be wildly different, and thus that your "machine gun
on a merry-go-round" analogy is obviously not the correct explanation
for the variations in magnitude of recurrent novas.

Jesse