zankaon

July 8, 2016

Calculations and gravitational potential tapering – a problem? Angular inertia? Motion for our Sun, as part of a binary system? Parallax resolution?

Might gravitational potential, instead of inversely droping off linearly, perhaps have a different (exponential like?) tapering? Differently, does the electric field, and also radioactivity, have a sudden drop off? Thus is there perhaps precedence for differences in field strength, and decreases in other phenomenon?

Might such conjecture be consistent with any apparent gravitational binding of Proxima centauri in it’s triple star system, even though seeming, through calculations, being too far from other 2 stars? Likewise is gravitational potential seemingly too weak, via calculations, to keep our moon in orbit? Hence might our gravitational potential have a different gradual tapering, not reflected in our calculations or modeling?

Alternatively, rather than assumed tapering of gravitational potential, might angular momentum transfer alone account for ongoing migration of KBO objects, as part of circular orbiting Oort cloud? Or might just a weak gravitational description, together with angular momentum transfer, account for orbiting of Oort cloud objects?

Might such constant speed circular orbiting ( i.e. no central force, and hence no Kepler Laws) be described as angular inertia? Thus is outer extent of our solar system defined by such angular inertia in a flat 3-space, and not by gravitation; consistent with calculations? Thus no neccessity for tapering of gravitational potential model?

Also might any sister red dwarf star actually still be in nearly circular orbit with our sun, if still far out in weak tapering gravitational potential? If so, then a center of mass for such binary stellar system would be much closer to our sun. Hence might there be an additional detectable motion for our sun, if part of such binary system? Might parallax of a masked sun, giving apparent shifting position of background stars, actually be a composite of earth’s and sun’s respective orbit/motion?

For example, one could compare parallax results for vernal and autumnal equinoxes, which should be periodic. If not, then consistent with such additional parallax being due to a binary stellar companion.

Might one re-measure and reconsider Doppler spectroscopy radial velocity line of sight technique to detect any inapparent periodic frequency shifting  (of absorption lines) due to sun’s position at line of sight opposite sides of any motion? So rather than attributing such radial motion solely to our gas giant (~ 1/1000 of solar mass), might one have a larger component contribution from such considered center of mass for a binary stellar system?

For hot Jupiter’s, periodicity is over days. For our sun, might it be for over years, consistent with period of red dwarf companion?

Since approximately 1000 Jupiter masses equal mass of sun; thus for red dwarf of .04 solar mass, then ~40 Jupiter masses. Where would the center of gravity be, for such binary system? And what would motion for our sun look like, for such binary system? One could seemingly work both ways, deriving mass of system from doppler radial velocity effect; or conversely.

For movement of Sun, because of a binary companion for such system, one might consider a simplified circular motion; then would entire system (planets, asteroid belt, Kuiper belt, any neutrino belt, Oort cloud) all shift over a period of years (?), for inclusion of a red dwarf binary companion with period of years? That is, most of mass (95% for our ex.) is associated with our sun; hence such motion of sun would have associated changing center of mass.

Would rate of parallax changing give period of such primary stellar motion? Also no adjustments to gravitational description for various objects’ locations, for system moving as a whole, for massive sun’s location. So no relative change for inside overall system; but for comparison to outside environment, sun’s change in location would have effect of gradual change in curvature. Not unlike a rogue black hole binary moving into our system?

Doppler spectroscopy. incorrect drawing at beginning of link? CM should move?

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. doubt that the stars are fire
    doubt that the sun doeth move
    doubt truth to be a liar
    but never doubt parallax

    Comment by zankaon — September 6, 2016 @ 3:35 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.