[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment

Subject: Re: Ballistic Theory and the Sagnac Experiment
From: "George Dishman"
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:45:09 -0000
Newsgroups: sci.astro, sci.physics.relativity, sci.physics
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message 
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:53:55 -0000, "George Dishman" 
> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>>"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
>>> On 15 Mar 2006 05:12:24 -0800, "George Dishman" 
>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 14 Mar 2006 02:53:58 -0800, "George Dishman"
>>>>> <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> 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.

> 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.

>>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.


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