[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: Henri Wilson
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:08:22 GMT
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
On Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:45:09 -0000, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>

>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
>news:[email protected]
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:53:55 -0000, "George Dishman" 
>> <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]
>>>> On 15 Mar 2006 05:12:24 -0800, "George Dishman" 
>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 14 Mar 2006 02:53:58 -0800, "George Dishman"
>>>>>> <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> When the star lies well beyond the critical distance, brightness 
>>>>>> curves
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> hard to interpret.
>>>>>Your program should still produce curves, not crash.
>>>> It doesn't crash on my computer.
>>>I don't have time to write any more tonight
>>>but I found part of the problem, low values
>>>of eccentricity cause the blue curve to blow
>>>up. Try using 0.1 then 0.01 then 0.001 and
>>>you should see what I mean. The graph vanishes
>>>for zero. I used an orbital period of 0.0041
>>>years (1.5 days) but I don't think it matters
>> Why do you want to use such small eccentricities?
>The measured value is 2*10^-7. That means the
>Doppler shift is almost a perfect sine wave
>which I'm fairly sure implies a circular orbit
>in Ritz as well. It's only a starting point
>though, the idea is to tweak the values to see
>if Ritz can match the observations.

there is very little diference between e=0 and e=0.05 
>> It does go crazy for some
>> reason but there is very little difference between the curves of e=0.0 and 
>> 0.06
>> and you shouldn't try to use them. The program uses a very complex 
>> empirical
>> method to derive the ellipses. I didn't realize it failed at these low
>> eccentricities but don't worry about it. I'll look into the problem.
>It is symptomatic of an error in your coding so
>all the curves become suspect, I'll wait until
>you debug it before trying again.

I've fixed the simplified program. There was a '1/e' term. I made it a
1/(e+0.1) which doesn't matter because the height scale is arbitrary anyway.
Il fix the other program soon.

>>>The program crashes if the number of orbits
>>>is >25. For the pulsar we need to use at least
>>>1200, probably more.
>> That would take days to process even on the fastest computers.
>> You are trying to achieve the near impossible.
>Nah, it should be possible to solve it analytically
>and do it in a fraction of a second on-line.

Processing time is directly proportional to the number of orbits used.



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>