A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 20th 16, 11:30 AM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

I performed analysis of circular orbit case of twin binary stars.

I have realized the semi major axis in context of the 3rd Kepler law
must be surprisingly considered wrt the other star
and not wrt their barycentre, as I expected.

Otherwise formula of the 3rd Kepler law
does not match circular case requirement
of equality of gravitational and centripetal acceleration.

3rd Kepler law formula is usually presented as

G.(M1+M2) = 4.pi^2 . a^3/T^2

G is gravitational constant
M1,M2 object masses
a is semi major axis of orbit
T is orbit period.

For units of mass in Solar masses Ms,
distance in AU and time in years,
G/(4.pi^2 ) is approximately equal to 1.

1 + m/Ms = (AUs)^3/(years)^2

Let imagine our Solar system contains
twin binary stars of same masses 1 Ms,
on circular orbit with distance 2 AU,
with the radius of orbits 1 AU.

The gravitational acceleration
caused by the other star is 1/4 of that acting on the Earth,
as Sun stars have doubled distance 2 AU.

But the orbit radius is the same as for Earth 1AU,
so does centripetal acceleration for the same period 1 year.

Therefore period must be doubled,
as centripetal acceleration is proportional to 1/T^2.

It leads to Kepler 3rd law equation in Ms, AU, year units

2 = 1^3/2^2 = 1/4
for case we take as semi major axis the circle radius as usually.
This is obviously wrong.

But if we take as coordination centre not the barycentre,
but the centre of the other star,
then a = 2R = 2AU.

Then 2 = 2^3/2^2 = 2 and equality is reached.

So for comparable objects it looks like
G.(M1+M2) = 4.pi^2 . D^3/T^2
where D is maximum object distance.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
  #2  
Old February 20th 16, 05:55 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Poutnik wrote:

I performed analysis of circular orbit case of twin binary stars.

I have realized the semi major axis in context of the 3rd Kepler law
must be surprisingly considered wrt the other star
and not wrt their barycentre, as I expected.

Otherwise formula of the 3rd Kepler law
does not match circular case requirement
of equality of gravitational and centripetal acceleration. […]


(“twin binary stars” contains redundancy as both “twin” and “binary” refer
to the number 2. Also, one system of a pair of stars orbiting each other is
called a “binary _star_”.)

Kepler’s laws (1609–1619 CE) are laws of *planetary* motion. They were
never intended for binary star systems [Johannes Kepler did not know that
such systems existed; the telescope had just been improved for planetary
observation by Galileo Galilei in 1609, and it was William Herschel who
first came up with the idea of a binary star in 1802]. They do not consider
that the star a planet is orbiting is also moving, as they do not consider a
system star–planet with a barycenter around which both star and planet are
moving. [Kepler may not even have considered Sol merely a star of many
others as that thought – worded as “the doctrine of the infinite universe
and the innumerable worlds” – was formulated at first by Giordano Bruno in
1584, which was considered one heresy of several of Bruno’s by the Catholic
Church, for which he was burned at the stake in 1600.]

Therefore, as Isaac Newton (1687) showed already, Kepler’s laws are only an
approximation of the observed planetary motion.

We now know that even Newton’s laws are only a better approximation as (so
far) only general relativity (GR), postulated by Albert Einstein in 1915,
fully describes gravitational effects, including planetary motion. (GR
could explain and predict the perihelion precession of Mercury to great
precision; Kepler’s laws and Newtonian gravity could not.)

As we have seen again recently with GW150914, effects predicted by GR become
important when large masses like of that of stars are involved.

Therefore, ISTM your calculations using Kepler’s laws to describe a binary
star are mere cyclosophy.


F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
--
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop.
The officer asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am."
(from: WolframAlpha)
  #3  
Old February 20th 16, 07:38 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Dne 20/02/2016 v 17:55 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

I do not see the reason why did you hijacked my post to SPR,
as nature of topic is not SR/GR related.

(“twin binary stars” contains redundancy as both “twin” and “binary” refer
to the number 2. Also, one system of a pair of stars orbiting each other is
called a “binary _star_”.)


Oh, your usual obsessive nitpicking arrogance...

Find the help of a psychologist,
as life around of you must be challenging.

Twin is adjective describing stars of a binary star system,
while binary is adjective describing their relation.

Most of stars of binary systems are not twins,
while twin stars are most probably not
a part of the same binary system.

The plural can stay, as the topic is focused
on individual stars rather than on the system.


Kepler’s laws (1609–1619 CE) are laws of *planetary* motion. They were

.........
Church, for which he was burned at the stake in 1600.]


I am quite familiar with this history.

Therefore, as Isaac Newton (1687) showed already, Kepler’s laws are only an
approximation of the observed planetary motion.


But it is not fully the case of the 3rd law with sum of masses.
It is applicable as well for planet-moon systems
and binary star systems.

See e.g. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...Ay20-Lec4x.pdf
Kepler’s Laws, Binaries, and Stellar Masses.

GR effects for stars of Sun mass at distance 2 AU are very minor,
and negligible wrt to accuracy of data.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
  #4  
Old February 20th 16, 11:07 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.relativity
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Poutnik wrote in sci.physics, sci.astro, and sci.physics.relativity:

Dne 20/02/2016 v 17:55 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

I do not see the reason why did you hijacked my post to SPR,
as nature of topic is not SR/GR related.


Nothing was "hijacked […] to SPR", especially not "your post".

You have crossposted without Followup-To (which is unwise at best) to
sci.physics and sci.astro, and I have set Followup-To to the newsgroup
where I think that this discussion belongs. You might disagree, but
that does not give you the right to throw insults.

(“twin binary stars” contains redundancy as both “twin” and “binary”
refer to the number 2. Also, one system of a pair of stars orbiting
each other is called a “binary _star_”.)


Oh, your usual obsessive nitpicking arrogance...

Find the help of a psychologist,
as life around of you must be challenging.


Ad hominem.

Twin is adjective describing stars of a binary star system,
while binary is adjective describing their relation.


Nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star

Most of stars of binary systems are not twins,
while twin stars are most probably not
a part of the same binary system.


It is the modern definition of a binary star (system) that it is actually
two stars revolving around a common center of mass. You are confusing
*double* stars with *binary* stars and *twin* stars.

A “twin star”, by contrast, would be *one* star that has approximately the
same characteristics as another star (cf. “twin planet”) where nothing would
be implied about their orbits. But your definition above proves that you
were not referring to that.

The plural can stay, as the topic is focused
on individual stars rather than on the system.


More nonsense.

Kepler’s laws (1609–1619 CE) are laws of *planetary* motion. They were

........
Church, for which he was burned at the stake in 1600.]


I am quite familiar with this history.


Obviously you *were* not. And you have not only distorted, but completely
destroyed the context of my statement. Learn to quote.

Therefore, as Isaac Newton (1687) showed already, Kepler’s laws are only
an approximation of the observed planetary motion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it is not fully the case of the 3rd law with sum of masses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I beg your pardon?

It is applicable as well for planet-moon systems


No doubt about that, although there appears to be no official (IAU)
definition what distinguishes a planet–moon system from a double planet
system.

and binary star systems.


But the error increases with mass and decreases with minimum distance.

See e.g. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...Ay20-Lec4x.pdf
Kepler’s Laws, Binaries, and Stellar Masses.


Interesting. So much more… surprising that you have not cited this in your
OP, but mispresented those findings as your own.

GR effects for stars of Sun mass at distance 2 AU are very minor,


There are stars in binary star systems that have masses greater than the Sun
and a minimum distance from each other less than 2 AU. For example, Eta
Carinae A has ≈120 to {170 to 200} M☉, and Eta Carinae B has 30 to 80 M☉
[1], while the minimum distance between the stars is estimated to be 1.6 AU
[2] (the orbits are highly eccentric, which is why it took so long to
recognize that Eta Carinae is actually a binary star system).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae

and negligible wrt to accuracy of data.


Either do the math or cite evidence in which the math is done.


F'up2 news:sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
___________
[1] Kashi, A.; Soker, N. (2010). "Periastron Passage Triggering of the 19th
Century Eruptions of Eta Carinae". The Astrophysical Journal 723: 602.
arXiv:0912.1439. Bibcode:2010ApJ...723..602K.
doi:10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/602.
[2] Madura, T. I.; Gull, T. R.; Owocki, S. P.; Groh, J. H.; Okazaki, A. T.;
Russell, C. M. P. (2012). "Constraining the absolute orientation of η
Carinae's binary orbit: A 3D dynamical model for the broad [Fe III]
emission". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 420 (3):
2064. arXiv:1111.2226. Bibcode:2012MNRAS.420.2064M.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20165.x.
--
A neutron walks into a bar and inquires how much a drink costs.
The bartender replies, "For you? No charge."

(from: WolframAlpha)
  #5  
Old February 21st 16, 09:47 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Dne 20/02/2016 v 23:07 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
Poutnik wrote in sci.physics, sci.astro, and sci.physics.relativity:

Dne 20/02/2016 v 17:55 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):

I do not see the reason why did you hijacked my post to SPR,
as nature of topic is not SR/GR related.


Nothing was "hijacked […] to SPR", especially not "your post".

You have crossposted without Followup-To (which is unwise at best) to
sci.physics and sci.astro, and I have set Followup-To to the newsgroup
where I think that this discussion belongs. You might disagree, but
that does not give you the right to throw insults.


Follow-to is not mandatory, default behavior is following
to crossposted groups. Similarly ReplyTo in mails is not mandatory,
with default reply to the sender.



Twin is adjective describing stars of a binary star system,
while binary is adjective describing their relation.


Nonsense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star




Most of stars of binary systems are not twins,
while twin stars are most probably not
a part of the same binary system.


It is the modern definition of a binary star (system) that it is actually
two stars revolving around a common center of mass. You are confusing
*double* stars with *binary* stars and *twin* stars.

A “twin star”, by contrast, would be *one* star that has approximately the
same characteristics as another star (cf. “twin planet”) where nothing would
be implied about their orbits. But your definition above proves that you
were not referring to that.


No, you have misinterpreted my words.
You can see there is no redundancy.
2 stars being twins and being bonded in binary system
are 2 indenpendent pieces of information.






Kepler’s laws (1609–1619 CE) are laws of *planetary* motion. They were

........
Church, for which he was burned at the stake in 1600.]


I am quite familiar with this history.


Obviously you *were* not. And you have not only distorted, but completely
destroyed the context of my statement. Learn to quote.


You should do so at the first place, responding to the OP.
BTW, it was general comment to the paragraph. Everybody can review the
full version. IF I was reacting to particular statements, I would
mention them.

Therefore, as Isaac Newton (1687) showed already, Kepler’s laws are only
an approximation of the observed planetary motion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it is not fully the case of the 3rd law with sum of masses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I beg your pardon?


...obsessive nitpicking arrogance...


It is applicable as well for planet-moon systems


No doubt about that, although there appears to be no official (IAU)
definition what distinguishes a planet–moon system from a double planet
system.


It does not really matter, it can be generalized to all 2 body systems,
where GR effects can be still beglegted.

and binary star systems.


But the error increases with mass and decreases with minimum distance.


I do not object and I am aware of it.
But I suppose the evaluate the masses first by the Kepler law
from observed periods and distances.
Then, if combination of masses and distance calls for GR application,
that is is done.

See e.g. http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george...Ay20-Lec4x.pdf
Kepler’s Laws, Binaries, and Stellar Masses.


Interesting. So much more… surprising that you have not cited this in your
OP, but mispresented those findings as your own.


I have not cited as I have found it AFTER your response.
But I was aware of this application even before I have found it.

GR effects for stars of Sun mass at distance 2 AU are very minor,


There are stars in binary star systems that have masses greater than the Sun
and a minimum distance from each other less than 2 AU. For example, Eta
Carinae A has ≈120 to {170 to 200} M☉, and Eta Carinae B has 30 to 80 M☉
[1], while the minimum distance between the stars is estimated to be 1.6 AU
[2] (the orbits are highly eccentric, which is why it took so long to
recognize that Eta Carinae is actually a binary star system).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae


I am aware about Eta Carinae.

and negligible wrt to accuracy of data.


Either do the math or cite evidence in which the math is done.


If you think about it more, you will agree,
considering accuracy of the periods and distances.

Generally, not limited to binary stars,
there are cases where usage of Newton gravity is not justified
and
there are cases where usage of GR is not justified.



--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
  #6  
Old February 21st 16, 12:15 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Poutnik wrote:

Dne 20/02/2016 v 23:07 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
Poutnik wrote in sci.physics, sci.astro, and sci.physics.relativity:
Dne 20/02/2016 v 17:55 Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn napsal(a):
I do not see the reason why did you hijacked my post to SPR,
as nature of topic is not SR/GR related.

Nothing was "hijacked […] to SPR", especially not "your post".

You have crossposted without Followup-To (which is unwise at best) to
sci.physics and sci.astro, and I have set Followup-To to the newsgroup
where I think that this discussion belongs. You might disagree, but
that does not give you the right to throw insults.


Follow-to is not mandatory,


That depends on the server that one uses; there are servers that would not
allow crossposting without Followup-To, or crossposting to more than three
newsgroups. There are newsreaders that would issue a warning on attempt.
At least it is the polite and recommended behavior to respect the
organization of Usenet into *topics*, and set Followup-To accordingly.
Likewise, it is the polite and recommended behavior to trim one’s quotes to
the parts that one is referring to. You did neither.

default behavior is following to crossposted groups.


Which is why it is a bad idea.

“No posting is relevant to more than a handful of newsgroups.
If World War III is announced, it will be announced in
news.announce.important.”
–Peter da Silva (translated)

See also “no spam” in http://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?language=en&showpage=terms.

Similarly ReplyTo in mails is not mandatory,
with default reply to the sender.


The important difference being that the e-mail is still directed to only a
few people or one person.

Most of stars of binary systems are not twins,
while twin stars are most probably not
a part of the same binary system.


It is the modern definition of a binary star (system) that it is actually
two stars revolving around a common center of mass. You are confusing
*double* stars with *binary* stars and *twin* stars.

A “twin star”, by contrast, would be *one* star that has approximately
the same characteristics as another star (cf. “twin planet”) where
nothing would be implied about their orbits. But your definition above
proves that you were not referring to that.


No, you have misinterpreted my words.
You can see there is no redundancy.
2 stars being twins and being bonded in binary system
are 2 indenpendent pieces of information.


I have not misinterpreted your words. You have claimed that “twin stars are
most probably not a part of the same binary system.” Lack of evidence
notwithstanding, as “twin star” usually means something else than you think
it does, your statement is nonsense. You can invent your own terminology,
but you should not be surprised if that leads to misunderstandings and
others frown when you insist on that only your private terminology is the
correct one.

Therefore, as Isaac Newton (1687) showed already, Kepler’s laws are
only an approximation of the observed planetary motion.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But it is not fully the case of the 3rd law with sum of masses.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I beg your pardon?


..obsessive nitpicking arrogance...


/Ad hominem/ again because you cannot face the fact that your statement
is wrong. In fact, both you and the resource that you cite claim that
the approximation of Kepler’s laws *holds* in the case of binary stars.

It is applicable as well for planet-moon systems


No doubt about that, although there appears to be no official (IAU)
definition what distinguishes a planet–moon system from a double planet
system.


It does not really matter, it can be generalized to all 2 body systems,


Then there was no reason to mention this as a special case, was there?

where GR effects can be still beglegted.


YSCIB.

GR effects for stars of Sun mass at distance 2 AU are very minor,


There are stars in binary star systems that have masses greater than the
Sun and a minimum distance from each other less than 2 AU. For example,

Eta
Carinae A has ≈120 to {170 to 200} M☉, and Eta Carinae B has 30 to 80 M☉
[1], while the minimum distance between the stars is estimated to be 1.6
[AU 2] (the orbits are highly eccentric, which is why it took so long to
recognize that Eta Carinae is actually a binary star system).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eta_Carinae


I am aware about Eta Carinae.


So you were deliberately misrepresenting the facts, i.e. lying? Because Eta
Carinae, for example, shows that you are proceeding from a false assumption,
namely that GR would never be needed to describe binary star systems
*properly*.

and negligible wrt to accuracy of data.

Either do the math or cite evidence in which the math is done.


If you think about it more, you will agree,
considering accuracy of the periods and distances.


IOW, you are not able or willing to substantiate your claims. Figures.

Score adjusted.

F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
--
Q: What did the female magnet say to the male magnet?
A: From the back, I found you repulsive, but from the front
I find myself very attracted to you.
(from: WolframAlpha)
  #7  
Old February 21st 16, 03:21 AM posted to sci.astro
Peter Riedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:30:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
I performed analysis of circular orbit case of twin binary stars.

I have realized the semi major axis in context of the 3rd Kepler law
must be surprisingly considered wrt the other star
and not wrt their barycentre, as I expected.

Otherwise formula of the 3rd Kepler law
does not match circular case requirement
of equality of gravitational and centripetal acceleration.

3rd Kepler law formula is usually presented as

G.(M1+M2) = 4.pi^2 . a^3/T^2

G is gravitational constant
M1,M2 object masses
a is semi major axis of orbit
T is orbit period.

For units of mass in Solar masses Ms,
distance in AU and time in years,
G/(4.pi^2 ) is approximately equal to 1.

1 + m/Ms = (AUs)^3/(years)^2

Let imagine our Solar system contains
twin binary stars of same masses 1 Ms,
on circular orbit with distance 2 AU,
with the radius of orbits 1 AU.

The gravitational acceleration
caused by the other star is 1/4 of that acting on the Earth,
as Sun stars have doubled distance 2 AU.

But the orbit radius is the same as for Earth 1AU,
so does centripetal acceleration for the same period 1 year.

Therefore period must be doubled,
as centripetal acceleration is proportional to 1/T^2.

It leads to Kepler 3rd law equation in Ms, AU, year units

2 = 1^3/2^2 = 1/4
for case we take as semi major axis the circle radius as usually.
This is obviously wrong.

But if we take as coordination centre not the barycentre,
but the centre of the other star,
then a = 2R = 2AU.

Then 2 = 2^3/2^2 = 2 and equality is reached.

So for comparable objects it looks like
G.(M1+M2) = 4.pi^2 . D^3/T^2
where D is maximum object distance.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.


I posted on 17/2/16 in sci.physics:
'Science has not grasped the significance of Kepler's third'.

Sam Wormley replied:
"Kepler's third law (from the early 1600s) gave us the relative sizes of the orbits, T^2 ~ a^3.

Isaac Newton's version of Kepler's third law T^2 = (2π)^2 a^3 / G(M+m)
where (2π)^2/G is just a constant of proportionality.

Orbits of earth and solar system satellites today are described by their Keplerian Elements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements

Science not only grasped the significance of Kepler's third law,
but makes use of it 24/7".

Both Sam and Herr Spitzohr make sense, you do not.
  #8  
Old February 21st 16, 09:23 AM posted to sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Dne 21/02/2016 v 03:21 Peter Riedt napsal(a):



I posted on 17/2/16 in sci.physics:
'Science has not grasped the significance of Kepler's third'.


That is false.

Sam Wormley replied:
"Kepler's third law (from the early 1600s) gave us the relative sizes of the orbits, T^2 ~ a^3.


That is true.

Isaac Newton's version of Kepler's third law T^2 = (2π)^2 a^3 / G(M+m)
where (2π)^2/G is just a constant of proportionality.


That is true.


Orbits of earth and solar system satellites today are described by their Keplerian Elements.


I would not call them Keplerian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements

Science not only grasped the significance of Kepler's third law,
but makes use of it 24/7".


That is true.

Both Sam and Herr Spitzohr make sense, you do not.



--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
  #9  
Old February 21st 16, 03:23 AM posted to sci.astro
Peter Riedt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:30:02 PM UTC+8, Poutnik wrote:
I performed analysis of circular orbit case of twin binary stars.

I have realized the semi major axis in context of the 3rd Kepler law
must be surprisingly considered wrt the other star
and not wrt their barycentre, as I expected.

Otherwise formula of the 3rd Kepler law
does not match circular case requirement
of equality of gravitational and centripetal acceleration.

3rd Kepler law formula is usually presented as

G.(M1+M2) = 4.pi^2 . a^3/T^2

G is gravitational constant
M1,M2 object masses
a is semi major axis of orbit
T is orbit period.

For units of mass in Solar masses Ms,
distance in AU and time in years,
G/(4.pi^2 ) is approximately equal to 1.

1 + m/Ms = (AUs)^3/(years)^2

Let imagine our Solar system contains
twin binary stars of same masses 1 Ms,
on circular orbit with distance 2 AU,
with the radius of orbits 1 AU.

The gravitational acceleration
caused by the other star is 1/4 of that acting on the Earth,
as Sun stars have doubled distance 2 AU.

But the orbit radius is the same as for Earth 1AU,
so does centripetal acceleration for the same period 1 year.

Therefore period must be doubled,
as centripetal acceleration is proportional to 1/T^2.

It leads to Kepler 3rd law equation in Ms, AU, year units

2 = 1^3/2^2 = 1/4
for case we take as semi major axis the circle radius as usually.
This is obviously wrong.

But if we take as coordination centre not the barycentre,
but the centre of the other star,
then a = 2R = 2AU.

Then 2 = 2^3/2^2 = 2 and equality is reached.

So for comparable objects it looks like
G.(M1+M2) = 4.pi^2 . D^3/T^2
where D is maximum object distance.

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.


I posted: Science has not grasped the significance of Kepler's third.

Sam Wormley


Kepler's third law (from the early 1600s) gave us the relative
sizes of the orbits. T^2 ~ a^3

Isaac Newton's version of Kepler's third law
T^2 == (2π)^2 a^3 / G(M+m)

where (2π)^2/G is just a constant of proportionality.

Orbits of earth and solar system satellites today are described by
their Keplerian Elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements


Science not only grasped the significance of Kepler's third law,
but make use of it 24/7.
  #10  
Old February 21st 16, 09:26 AM posted to sci.astro
Poutnik[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default 3rd Kepler law, twin stars, centres, and semi major axis

Dne 21/02/2016 v 03:23 Peter Riedt napsal(a):



Kepler's third law (from the early 1600s) gave us the relative
sizes of the orbits. T^2 ~ a^3

Isaac Newton's version of Kepler's third law
T^2 == (2π)^2 a^3 / G(M+m)

where (2π)^2/G is just a constant of proportionality.

Orbits of earth and solar system satellites today are described by
their Keplerian Elements.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements


Science not only grasped the significance of Kepler's third law,
but make use of it 24/7.


The point is, Kepler laws are laws just by name,
being empirical rules as consequence of the Newton gravity law.

Not the otherwise.


--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Semi-regular variable stars ukastronomy Astronomy Misc 0 October 22nd 07 10:44 AM
Semi-regular variable stars ukastronomy Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 07 08:16 AM
Twin Quasar in Ursa Major Anthony Ayiomamitis Amateur Astronomy 16 March 26th 07 11:17 AM
Twin Quasar in Ursa Major Anthony Ayiomamitis UK Astronomy 15 March 26th 07 11:17 AM
Semi-minor Axis JG UK Astronomy 21 January 1st 06 02:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.