On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 12:55:45 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
Sure....and 'error bars' can come in very handy when one wants to fiddle
the
results. 
Ain't stats wonderful?
Even easier not to show them and claim you have a "match"
when you curve is obviously outside the bars, or even
better, don't show the velocity scale on your graph and
claim a "match" when the curves have the same shape even
though the peak amplitude of the measurement is 27983 m/s
but your model predicts 0.0013 m/s ;-)
That's prefectly all right.
The effective distance is a lot less than the hipparcos one and orbit is
probably pitched at a high angle.
George, does Jupiter have moons and orbit the sun?
Does the Earth have a moon George and orbit the sun?
OK, I should have also said "very disparate masses". There is
an upper limit of a mass ratio of ~24:1 for the Lagrange point
stability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_point#Stability
yes yes, theories theories.
Not this time Henry, pure maths and not open to argument.
Three body problems are not easily solved generally....let alone four of
five
body problem...
But special cases can be solved and the Lagrange configuration
is one of them. If the system is stable then the bodies have
a fixed relationship. In general three body systems are chaotic.
Yes I realise that.
That's why I used the 60 degree lag.
I don't think you have fully realised the complexity of this whole
issue
George.
I don't think you realise the complexity of the effect of
speed unification on VDoppler ;-)
I am not worrying about speed unification at the moment.
Don't forget you still need it to avoid the problem of
multiple images. I would explain more but it will be hard
to find words you can follow (no insult intended, it's
just tricky to describe unless you already know the answer).
I'm not worrying about it because I don't need it and cannot see any way to
include it. That doesn't mean I think it doesn't happen. It certainly
does...but not on anything like the scale that I previously required to explain
the distance discrepancy.
I did this some time ago, the vertical scale of the waveform
is voltage, horizontal scale is distance, no extinction.
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/RitzSine.html
The ADoppler is obvious but the VDoppler is harder to see.
Just after launch the wavelength is constant but the speed
varies hence frequency varies. I'm going to try to add a
sample locations and have a graph showing the frequency
measured at that point as a function of time but it isn't
easy to see how to illustrate the relation to orbital phase.
I can't see any 'VDoppler' effect.
Your program does exactly what mine does.
It shows that maximum compression occurs in pulses emitted at 270 (the furthest
point). The TRUE maximum velocity occurs at zero phase.
I gather you are refering to the fact that the phase of the compression maximum
does change slightly as the distance increases. It asymptotes towards 90 wrt
the true velocity maximum.
You can see now why astronomy has been completely wrong for a century. All
'doppler determined' velocity curves are likely to be about 90 degrees out.
This version shows "pulses". I fact I cheated, the waveform
is the 11th power of a sine wave but it looks like a pulse
and means the shape changes correctly:
http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Henri/RitzPulse.html
that's OK.
Do you now agree with what I said? If pulse arrival rate is used in
conventional doppler, then the calculated velocity curve will be 90 out wrt the
true one.
The chancess are its
effect is much less than I thought it was. Rather, my 'distance
discrepancies'
are largely due to orbit pitch.
Your model should include all the parameters, you may not
think them important now but in some future discussion
they may become important.
Pitch can be varied in my variables.exe program.
I don't think you realise the constraints Keplerian orbits
place on you Henry.
George, there are probably 10 billion stars in our galaxy, most with
companions
and orbiting planets.
Do you really think we know every possible configuration just by
investigating
our own solar system?
No, I think we can eliminate unstable configurations by
applying Newton's Laws (relativistic effects are small).
That would be nice..
For the Lagrange it has been done.
I read somewhere that a conglomerate of asteroids might possibly exists around
a Lagrange point. ...maybe from an exploded star or planet.
However my program IS strictly limited to Keplerian orbits. I introduced
the
phase variation to investigate Lagrange points....and found evidence
that
objects DO exist at the 60 degree one.
How can YOU explain a curve like this one:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifl/00064.gif
It's certainly not a simple overtone.
Nope, there looks to be quite a bit of cycle-to-cycle
variation.
I would put that down to weather conditions.
The position of the dip does not appear to change.
There is no traditional way to explain it.
..but the dip can be explained with an object rotating in the same orbit
but
with 60 degree lag.
see S Cas in:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg
Mine is the yellow curve....a perfect fit...
Unfortunately, however, I cannot explain the claimed magnitude change of
about
9. In fact I don't believe it. According to the britastro website, there
is a
group of stars that appears to have very large changes in brightness. How
do
YOU explain those? I think somebody forgot to convert to a log scale.
That's unlikely but they are unlikely to be cepheids, the
nromal range for them goes up to about 2.0 IIRC. I would
need to s bit of research to find out what would cause
such a large range. From your point of view it is trivial,
the extinction distance is 99.9498% of the critical distance
compared to 72.6% for a mag 2.0 change. You might think that
having the extinction at 99.9498% of critical when we are
certain it never _exceeds_ critical (because we never see
multiple images) is a remarkable coincidence but that's
what the whole Cepheid variation idea relies on. I doubt
Sekerin even fully understood that. Oh and note that a tiny
change in inclination would put it over that limit, the radial
component of acceleration depends on inclination for a given
orbit while the extinction distance depends on the "quality
of space". That's why you suspected extinction depended on
the orbit, for 9 mag it has to be 99.9498% regardless of your
pitch factor.
But George, you are completely ignoring the fact that the calculated radial
velocities are much higher than the real ones...due to the fact that bunching
is used as a measure.
In the case of your pulsar, astronomers have used the maximum rate of pulse
arrival as an indicator of maximum doppler shift. As you are now aware, this is
way out in both magnitude and phase.
What mass ratio?
You can get an estimate from the relative sizes of the dip and main curve.
I
would say about 4:1 .
Then it is not possible. Try putting it into your orbital
simulation and if your software is accurate the system will
be unstable and become chaotic or possibly eject one of the
bodies leaving a tighter binary.
The velocities are the same.
The rest would be too speculative.
George
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.