PM2017 wrote:Are we expected to use calculus with Kepler's Laws? The stuff that Wikipedia has on that is quite daunting.
Not at all; the calculus is really just there for you to understand the theoretical underpinnings of Kepler's Laws. Kepler's Laws usually will be used in application with a certain orbital configuration given and for you to figure out certain aspects of that orbit (for instance mass of the star(s), semimajor axis, period, certain peculiarities that come from that, etc.)
Thanks!
What exactly do you mean by "certain peculiarities?" I don't think I've seen that in my two years of doing this event.
PM2017 wrote:Are we expected to use calculus with Kepler's Laws? The stuff that Wikipedia has on that is quite daunting.
Not at all; the calculus is really just there for you to understand the theoretical underpinnings of Kepler's Laws. Kepler's Laws usually will be used in application with a certain orbital configuration given and for you to figure out certain aspects of that orbit (for instance mass of the star(s), semimajor axis, period, certain peculiarities that come from that, etc.)
Thanks!
What exactly do you mean by "certain peculiarities?" I don't think I've seen that in my two years of doing this event.
Exoplanet transits come to mind (though of course that hasn't been a topic for a while).
PM2017 wrote:Are we expected to use calculus with Kepler's Laws? The stuff that Wikipedia has on that is quite daunting.
I think the only derivation you will ever see is deriving Kepler's third law using a circular orbit. You get the same result as the derivation for an elliptical orbit but it requires no calculus.
Hi all!
Has anyone found a period-luminsoity relationship for RR Lyrae stars that doesn't involve metallicity, or is that an essential part of the relationship?
PM2017 wrote:Hi all!
Has anyone found a period-luminsoity relationship for RR Lyrae stars that doesn't involve metallicity, or is that an essential part of the relationship?
Estimating at 0.55 absolute magnitude works very well in most cases. I haven't looked into finding a more detailed relationship.
Woah, so many posts:O. I remember having to learn DSO IDs pretty early...I think even around this time I still wouldn't get some down, but then again some objects have pretty weird images. Main thing is not to panic and make a study plan is what I say! I'll reply to some other things for fun since I can (mostly confirmations of what others say)...
Planck's Law math is a bit obnoxious and not that effective to assess whether you understand information (at least in high school). Often involves calculus too...which is not fun and not test-able for high schoolers in my book. You should be aware that Planck's Law exists, assumptions that go into it, and how it relates to blackbodies / radiation laws of blackbodies (e.g. Wien's Law), though. I think even for Remote it would be a bit obnoxious to put it on, unless people do...
As for calculus, no calculus in scioly. On the other hand, Kepler's Laws (namely the 2nd and 3rd) do involve a lot of algebra, and that can certainly be tested! For example, binary stars, conserving angular momentum, and associated graphs are all fair. I don't know if exoplanet transits are a great example of peculiarities as much as (say) how to account for inclination. In fact, a lot of what we know about transits comes from studying binary stars with Kepler's Laws anyway. There's lots of ways to take a simple circular orbit and make it complicated basically, and you should look into relations or equations for that (or if too complicated, at least be able to attempt explanations for it). This all sounds like a lot, but if you just keep an organized, up to date formula sheet that isn't overcrowded, then I think it'll be fine. The fundamentals (a^3/P^2, etc) are most important anyway.
Anddd Unome knows the answer for RR Lyrae stars, so I'll leave it at that.
Interesting questions, I like how it's on the basics as opposed to all the nitty gritty on fancy massive stars .
B: Crave the Wave, Environmental Chemistry, Robo-Cross, Meteo, Phys Sci Lab, Solar System, DyPlan (E and V), Shock Value
C: Microbe Mission, DyPlan (Fresh Waters), Fermi Questions, GeoMaps, Grav Vehicle, Scrambler, Rocks, Astro
Grad: Writing Tests/Supervising (NY/MI)
For your DSO Profiles, do you just copy the charts from Wikipedia, or do you use other sources as well? (I'm talking about just the table, not the text)
I've found that Wikipedia often contradicts sources like Chandra.
PM2017 wrote:This question is mainly directed to Unome.
For your DSO Profiles, do you just copy the charts from Wikipedia, or do you use other sources as well? (I'm talking about just the table, not the text)
I've found that Wikipedia often contradicts sources like Chandra.
Worse test writers tend to use Wikipedia more, while good test writers (including those at nats) specifically avoid things mentioned on Wikipedia. That being said, you have space for both in your binder/laptop for both, so I would use anything you can find including Wikipedia, and indicate where it comes from (or whatever fits your organizing style).
Ladue Science Olympiad (2014ish-2017)
A wild goose flies over a pond, leaving behind a voice in the wind.
A man passes through this world, leaving behind a name.
PM2017 wrote:This question is mainly directed to Unome.
For your DSO Profiles, do you just copy the charts from Wikipedia, or do you use other sources as well? (I'm talking about just the table, not the text)
I've found that Wikipedia often contradicts sources like Chandra.
Worse test writers tend to use Wikipedia more, while good test writers (including those at nats) specifically avoid things mentioned on Wikipedia. That being said, you have space for both in your binder/laptop for both, so I would use anything you can find including Wikipedia, and indicate where it comes from (or whatever fits your organizing style).
So should I be looking through all the jargon found in academic papers?
(That seems quite tortuous, but also quite rewarding)
PM2017 wrote:This question is mainly directed to Unome.
For your DSO Profiles, do you just copy the charts from Wikipedia, or do you use other sources as well? (I'm talking about just the table, not the text)
I've found that Wikipedia often contradicts sources like Chandra.
Worse test writers tend to use Wikipedia more, while good test writers (including those at nats) specifically avoid things mentioned on Wikipedia. That being said, you have space for both in your binder/laptop for both, so I would use anything you can find including Wikipedia, and indicate where it comes from (or whatever fits your organizing style).
So should I be looking through all the jargon found in academic papers?
(That seems quite tortuous, but also quite rewarding)
.
