How can I solve a spectroscopic eclipsing binary system problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soylentgreen
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Astronomy Binary
AI Thread Summary
To solve the spectroscopic eclipsing binary system problem, first analyze the wavelengths of light to identify their position in the electromagnetic spectrum. This will indicate whether the stars are red-shifted or blue-shifted, revealing their movement relative to Earth. Understanding these shifts is crucial for determining the binary system's dynamics. The user is seeking assistance before an upcoming astronomy competition deadline. Utilizing the provided resources may further aid in resolving the problem.
Soylentgreen
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
i have been trying to do this problem for an hour and i have no clue what to do for it... please help me

It's on the 4th page down and it is called "Spectroscopic eclipsing Binary System"

htt p://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/sci_olympiad/Spok_2000_C_Instrcs_&_Quests.pdf

this page has the answer to it:

htt p://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/fellows/sci_olympiad/Spok_2000_Rch_Strs_Answr_Key.pdf

i need help before sunday, cause that is when my astronomy competition is. thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok I am no expert but perhaps I can help a little. From the wavelengths determine which part of the electromagnetic spectrum the light is then you can see if the star is red shifted or blue shifted ie moving away or nearer.
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'
TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
Back
Top