If you want to know how we detect exomoons around exoplanets then check out: Exomoon Detection: Asymmetric Transit - ruclips.net/video/MqiFZM9e_U4/видео.html Exomoon Detection: Transit Timing Variations - ruclips.net/video/MMGDhjmgPWI/видео.html
In a two-body system, both exert the same force on each other, but the star is much more massive and isn't as effected by it. Both have the same momentum due to the law of conservation of momentum. The momentum of both a star and a planet remains constant as long as they're within a closed system. This implies that any changes in the momentum of one are counterbalanced by an equal and opposite change in the momentum of the other.
Thanks for this beautiful explanation...but I had one question. You said that inclination might affect measurement of velocity that might affect subsequent measurements of mass. But I see you used radial velocity only to find orbital period. Then you used Kepler's law to find orbital velocity. So I can't understand how inclination will affect results. Thanks again for the video and hope to see many more coming.
Thank you. Yes you can use the orbital period to get the minimum mass of the exoplanet. If it is inclined then the measured velocity will be less, since some of it is not in the line of sight. Vstar is the measure radial velocity which we use to get Vp. Hence, if it is inclined our Vstar will be lower than it actually would be, but we do not know this. This is why normally when you look up the mass of an exoplanet it is typically given as a minimum mass. Hope that makes sense.
Consider attempting to find a shred of evidence that actually supports the heliocentric model or even just the globe before going down the fantasy rabbit hole.
@@AstroPhil2000 Interesting you jumped straight to FE. It definitely explains more than the heliocentric model but still not everything. Also not sure where that quote came from, but I have done my own long distance observations with a high zoom camera, which should’ve been blocked by hundreds of feet of curvature. If you’ve got the time, stop by the 247 FE discord server and check out their resources, definitely irrefutable. Or if you’ve got some globe proof go ahead and lay it on me.
@@samatics4 Literally every astronomical object in the sky is spherical. Even your high zoom camera can see this. There is zero evidence for a flat earth. A flat earth is most idiotic concept.
@@binarysausage9969 If I’m in a forest surrounded by trees does that make me a tree? You need to prove curvature exists. Until then, you have no other choice but to admit we live on a flat stationary plane.
If you want to know how we detect exomoons around exoplanets then check out:
Exomoon Detection: Asymmetric Transit - ruclips.net/video/MqiFZM9e_U4/видео.html
Exomoon Detection: Transit Timing Variations - ruclips.net/video/MMGDhjmgPWI/видео.html
Good job!
Thanks!
Great video!
Thanks!
Fantastic video.
Thank you very much!
How do we know that the same orbital period means that the exoplanet and star will have the same momentum?
In a two-body system, both exert the same force on each other, but the star is much more massive and isn't as effected by it. Both have the same momentum due to the law of conservation of momentum. The momentum of both a star and a planet remains constant as long as they're within a closed system. This implies that any changes in the momentum of one are counterbalanced by an equal and opposite change in the momentum of the other.
Thanks for this beautiful explanation...but I had one question. You said that inclination might affect measurement of velocity that might affect subsequent measurements of mass. But I see you used radial velocity only to find orbital period. Then you used Kepler's law to find orbital velocity. So I can't understand how inclination will affect results. Thanks again for the video and hope to see many more coming.
Thank you. Yes you can use the orbital period to get the minimum mass of the exoplanet. If it is inclined then the measured velocity will be less, since some of it is not in the line of sight. Vstar is the measure radial velocity which we use to get Vp. Hence, if it is inclined our Vstar will be lower than it actually would be, but we do not know this. This is why normally when you look up the mass of an exoplanet it is typically given as a minimum mass. Hope that makes sense.
@@AstroPhil2000 got it...thanks again!
No problem, I might might a future video on how the inclination affects the observed velocity and focus on the minimum mass more.
Could I do this for ?
Sure, might be harder to do as we would need to measure the movement of the Sun while we orbit it.
It would help a lot if you would say in what units all of the data is supposed to be in
Space units.
Consider attempting to find a shred of evidence that actually supports the heliocentric model or even just the globe before going down the fantasy rabbit hole.
I assume you have lots of evidence of a flat Earth from doing "your own research"?
@@AstroPhil2000 Interesting you jumped straight to FE. It definitely explains more than the heliocentric model but still not everything. Also not sure where that quote came from, but I have done my own long distance observations with a high zoom camera, which should’ve been blocked by hundreds of feet of curvature. If you’ve got the time, stop by the 247 FE discord server and check out their resources, definitely irrefutable. Or if you’ve got some globe proof go ahead and lay it on me.
@@samatics4 Literally every astronomical object in the sky is spherical. Even your high zoom camera can see this. There is zero evidence for a flat earth. A flat earth is most idiotic concept.
@@binarysausage9969 If I’m in a forest surrounded by trees does that make me a tree?
You need to prove curvature exists. Until then, you have no other choice but to admit we live on a flat stationary plane.
@@samatics4 this was actually funny lmao