"Mike Williams" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:FFiKjkCPPmwHFwnr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| Wasn't it Gene Hatch who wrote:
|
| >Sadly, my math seems to be rusting away, and I don't know If it was
| >ever good enough to figure this. My intuition, though, makes me think
| >that a planet with a highly eccentric orbit would be easier to detect
| >(using stellar doppler ****ft) than one with a circular orbit of similar
| >period. Am I full of crap?
|
| My intuition suggests that the two opposing factors probably come close
| to cancelling out. Perhaps the orientation of the ellipse with respect
| to the line of sight from the Earth may be significant.
|
| A planet with a very highly eccentric orbit reaches points that are
| nearly twice as far from the primary as a planet of the same period in a
| circular orbit, this causing nearly twice the displacement in the star's
| position.
Egads! "Twice" is pro****tional to "very highly", with eccentricity in
the range 0-1.
| However, it's not the position of the star that is observed by
| monitoring the Doppler ****ft, but the rate of change of position.
Yeah...
| The
| large ****ft in the stars position occurs when the planet is far from the
| star and therefore moving more slowly.
However, it's not the position of the star that is observed by
monitoring the Doppler ****ft, but the rate of change of position.
What is it you are trying to say?
Aside from some vague reference to orbital inclination cancelling out
your intuition, are you asking a question, stating an opinion, giving
us the benefit of your wisdom, mumbling under your breath, what?
|
