On 30 Mar 2007 23:12:44 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

Yes...but the rotation is about an axis in the edge-on position....that axis
lying perpendicular to the LOS and in the plane of the orbit.

It is ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO FIND SUCH AN AXIS, no matter what the orbit
configuration wrt Earth.
..

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

http://mtp.jpl.nasa.gov/notes/pointing/pointing.html

Leonard

I have tried to explain before that I have redefined pitch and yaw to make the
programming of this stuff possible. My method is 100% correct and effective.
For the purpose of brightness variation and measurement, one angle can be
eliminated by simply 'rotating the horizontal', ie., one's head.

Every orbit, eliptical or circular can be described in this way. ...an edge on
orbit multiplied by cos(pitch)...or 'inclination' as you call it.

To verify what I am saying, I suggest you make a paper cutout of an ellipse,
stick it at some odd angle onto the end of a rod and hold it up in front of
you. If you rotate the rod (representing the LOS) you will see that at one
particular angle there will be an axis in the orbit plane that lies
perpendicular to the LOS and parallel to the line between your eyes (the new
horizontal).

In that position, the orbit can be rotated around THAT AXIS through an angle
(my 'pitch') into an edge on position. I define YAW as the angle between the
major axis of the ellipse and the LOS when the orbit is in that edge on
position. My 'zero yaw angle' is also defined differently ...for programming
reasons.

Thus, both acceleration and velocity can be simply multiplied by cos(pitch) to
reduce their component in the direction of the observer. The effect is to
simply reduce the height of my predicted brightness curves but not their
**shapes**, which are determined solely by eccentricity and yaw angle.

Note: It is not possible to resolve the pitch angle from a point source of
light and I know of no method that can determine the pitch component involved
in a measured velocity. So my radial velocity figures automatically represent
(orbital velocity x cos(pitch).


Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.