Speed of light is not constant.

Nope.
If I have a train that has boxcars that are 1 mile in length and it always passes me at 60 mph then it will always take 1 minute for a boxcar to pass me.

Likewise, the eclipses from Algol are equally spaced apart from each other because the eclipses are occurring at regular intervals which means that the distance between the eclipses is always the same just like the boxcars on a train all being the same length. So if the light transmitting the eclipses is always passing the earth at the same speed then it will always be the same amount of time between the eclipses. That isn't what happens though. Instead, the period of time between eclipses varies from a high of 2.8675875347 days to a low of 2.8670608912 - a difference of 0.0005265741 days or 45.5019984 seconds (i.e. +/-22.7509992 seconds). This means that the light is passing the earth more slowly and more quickly and isn't always at speed c relative to all observers.

A second grader could probably grasp this so why can't you?

What you are claiming is that light is like a boxcar.

Before we see how ridiculous this is... please tell me, what determines the speed of the boxcar? Is it equal to the speed of the star that emitted it? Or the speed of the star plus some constant?

I think your claim is that the speed of a "boxcar" from algol will be different than a "boxcar" from betelguese. Right?

In science, a hypothesis has to work for every conceivable experiment. I am not sure yet if the math you are proposing actually works for the one circumstance for which you rigged it. You have yet to show me your math with actual numbers (which are posted in the article).

But once you have done that, all I have to do is present any experimental results that don't work with your hypothesis... and a scientist must drop your hypothesis as disproven.

That is how science works.

Because I am not a second grader. Maybe you would have better luck explaining your ideas to 7 year olds.

One of the themes of anti-science is the idea that education hurts your ability to understand, and that people without an education know more than those who are educated. It is a very democratic idea in its way.

Imagine that you are standing still next to a railroad track and a train is passing you at 60 mph. The boxcars are 1 mile long so that there is 1 minute between the arrival of each boxcar. You now start moving in the same direction that the train is traveling at 30 mph. You will notice 2 things:
1. The train is passing you more slowly.
2. The time between boxcars has increased to 2 minutes.

30 mph is 44 ft/sec. In 2 minutes I travel 5280 ft or 1 mile. That 1 mile is 1 extra minute for the train at 60 mph so the time between boxcars increases from 1 minute to 2 minutes. The train is passing me at 30 mph due to my motion in the same direction as the train. The train was passing me at 60 mph when I was standing still so the speed of the train has decreased relative to me.

In 2.867321 days the Earth moves about 7,379,039 km closer to Algol.
7,379,039 km divided by the speed of light 299,792.458 km/sec is 24.61382 seconds - this rough calculation explains the deviations we see in Graph 2.

What is the difference between my analogy with the train and the timing of the eclipses coming from Algol?

If your theory matches experimental data in this case, then for this one observation there is no difference. The reason science rejected your theory is that it fails many expeemental tests. If a theory fails any experimental test it is rejected. That is how science works.

What's your point? If you are saying your theory successfully predicts the observed results in this one case, that's fine. But it doesn't prove anything.

I am going to ask again...

For all of the work you are doing, why dont you take a real Physics course?