Posted on 07/03/2003 10:22:13 AM PDT by RightWhale
Remember when a planet is orbiting a star; it also has a gravitational influence on that star as well. So it’s not just a planet orbiting a star, it's both orbiting a common center of mass.
So as the planet becomes more massive, the further the center of mass moves from the center of the star (causing the star to wobble).
Also the period of an orbit is directly proportional to its distance from the star, closer is shorter.
So the massive close-in higher elliptical planets are far easier to detect.
If a planet has a perfectly circular orbit, the center of mass of the system will rotate around the center of the star in a uniform fashion and usually does not cause the star to wobble enough to be detectable by our present method of stellar displacement.
So in conclusion, a massive planet with a close in higher elliptical orbit will cause an appreciable fast enough wobble that is easier to detect.
Physicist, longshadow, MikeD; All; Anything you want to add?
ROFL! (or too many bananas cause ME to speed to the local restroom) hehehehehe
yes.....
you didn't use the term "wildly elliptical" anywhere in your explanation.
;-)
Unfortunately I have this irresistable urget to post that comment; "Wildly Elliptical"in blue. Didn't want to distract from the explanation. hehehehe
Katherine Hepburn was older than that. Puts a reference into the timescale--one lifetime. One lifetime to get there at the speed of light, another lifetime to get back.
NASA scientists, starry-eyed dreamers that they are, are building a spaceborne telescope to spot earthlike planets. Launch in about 4 years. Another eartlike planet spotting telescope to follow a couple years later. And another. It won't be long, unless, of course, they don't find something.
Agreed.
So as the planet becomes more massive, the further the center of mass moves from the center of the star (causing the star to wobble).
Agreed.
Also the period of an orbit is directly proportional to its distance from the star, closer is shorter.
Agreed.
So the massive close-in higher elliptical planets are far easier to detect.
If you change this to read: "So the massive close-in higher elliptical planets are far easier to detect.", Agreed.
Imagine a Jupiter mass planet in a circular orbit with perihelion = 1 AU. If you could change it's ellipticity (sp?) but keep the perihelion (closest approach) at 1 AU, does it become easier or harder to detect based on the stars radial velocity?
Since the maximum excursion of the center of mass would be the same in both cases, the elliptical orbit would be (at best) equally detectable to the circular orbit.
If we assume that both orbits are in the same plane with the observer on earth, the elliptical orbit becomes more difficult to detect if it's semi-major axis is perpendicular to the line of sight to earth.
Hmmm.... Think of it this way. If the planet is highly elliptical, the star will also exibit a elliptical motion around the center of mass (greater wobble). If the orbit plane is exactly in line with our line of sight of the star, I agree detection would be much more difficult. However, if we are looking at it face on, the motions of the star becomes much more apparent.
You never do. Which makes you clueless and irrelevant.
I have done nothing here but ask you to justify a-historical statements you made. I suggest that it is better to be clueless and irrelevant than unapologetically dissembling and distracting, offering cites intended to mislead, rather than enlighten.
shoo fly
I rest my case, and return the complement.
If you don't wish to be reminded of your failures to support your contentions in any reasonably relevant manner, I suggest you cease engaging in conversation with me. I have asked you many times, politely, not to start contentless verbal ping pong with me and you have ignored my requests.
If you don't what to hear what I have to say, don't post to me.
It really doesn't seem like an outstanding bet, at this point. However, let me just point out that it isn't all that insurmountable a barrier to occupation of other solar systems. Generation ships will be able to do it, and a fully utilized solar system should be able to slingshot stuff at close enough to light speeds to make the Twin Paradox effect a useful relative life-span lengthener for those who travel, if not for those who stay on their mudballs. A few prudent investments might make a round trip to alpha proxima a darn good fiscal gamble--but, of course, all your friends and family will be long gone by the time you collect.
Get your friends and family whipping around the univese with you, and the story might change for the better. (at least from your point of view) Of course, mudball dwellers may be increasingly viewed as cattle in such circumstances.
Wallace was a very far ways down to same path Darwin trod, and for much the same reasons; he had consulted with Darwin, and he was very impressed with Darwin's excruciatingly detailed efforts, and was a generous and gentle soul. He happily shared the pre-publication early exposures of the theory as the junior of the two, recognizing that Darwin's efforts far outstripped his in detail and scope, if not speed to market.
Looking at relative publication dates, it would be fair to say the Wallace could have stolen a great deal of Darwin's thunder, if he had simply published what he had, when he had intended to. That he chose not to commends him to me very much in an age already heating up with scientific competitiveness.
However, be that as it may, that in no way makes Darwin's work plagarism, or anything even remotely resembling plagarism, nest paws?
Ah, still lurking about, trying to find someone to provoke, I see. OK.
Here is the only cite reference you have made here that I am aware of.
http://www.designeduniverse.com/als/notconservatism.html
Could you show me where in this is the demonstration that Darwin is a plagarist? Or where in this is a demonstration that because some fascists adopt Darwinism, therefore Darwinism is scientifically discredited? I'm sure it was merely an oversight that you have failed to do so up to now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.