The general laws of motion for heavenly bodies was developed by Kepler
(1571-1630). Newton's (1642-1727) law says that for every action there is an
equal and opposite reaction, further he developed the law of gravity,
acceleration as a function of combined mass and distance. This mathematics,
along with the calculus, proved gravity the natural force that defined
Kepler's equations. Today, we see some stars move back and forth with
definite period when plotted over some time. Since they move, acceleration
is taking place. If acceleration is taking place there must be an equal and
opposite reaction somewhere. We see this movement with binary stars, but
with the observation we are discussing, no second star is seen. Whatever it
is that is supplying the mass necessary to produce this phenomena is dark.
>From the period, size of displacement, and the estimated mass of the
observed star (from brightness, temperature, etc.) a size (mass) may be
estimated for the dark mass (planet). From the accuracy of the
instrumentation and from the verified statistics of other observations, an
accuracy for this mass estimate can be determined. Over time (your 20 years)
the accuracy of measurements has increased dramatically to make the mass
estimates sufficiently tight to identify a planet. Since we have all
observed the dramatic advances in technology in the past 20 years (what
computer were you using in 1981?), it is not surprising that what was once
an educated conjecture has now been verified. All this sounds quite well
grounded in science and mathematics to me. In other words, it IS
scientifically based. FYI, most of the measurements are made using
photography (and a clock and calendar).
I have no idea where this word "wobble" came from, but can only assume it
was used by someone in an attempt to reference the phenomena for those
ignorant in astronomy and it somehow stuck. The star is NOT wobbling. It is
moving back and forth in relation to the background stars.
Regards,
Bob...
Give blood. Play hockey.
From: "aimcompute" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan was one
> of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's wobble
effect
> across the sky. My choice of the word observation in my earlier post was
> probably a poor one...
>
> It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20
years
> ago was only strong enough to be considered possible evidence, but today
is
> headlined as proof. So, I don't doubt that the wobble method is
> scientifically based. I am just perplexed by the strength of the
conclusion
> that are drawn now versus then.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
