|
Their data showed a period where the lightcurve was abruptly offset (in the middle of a nights observations) and it is their assertion that this represents an "event" indicates a possible binary nature. They went on further to assert that this short period disconnect (a matter of hours) represented a second period that they modeled to be a second period of greater than a days duration and that the moon was synchronous with the orbit.
I'd say that they had 'wishful thinking' that what is obviously a data issue represented something else. For starters:
1. Binary systems have at least 2 overlaying periods - we'll call them P1 and P2. P2 can represent the Orbit (ONLY where eclipsing events are seen) or the spin rotation of the moon. If the moon is synchronous then P2 represented BOTH orbit and moon spin rotation.
2. If the offset data represents P2, then P2 will be visible in ALL nights data, not just one nights data.
3. If the offset data represents eclipsing events then there will be shoulders on the curve into and out of the event, not an offset. Eclipse events don't just happen.
4. One cannot predict the value of a long period based on data captured over a few hours.
I tried responding to the person in question (in text mode) but was bounced by their spam filter. They even asked for collaboration! No idea how they expect to get any if they bounce emails!
In any case my 'sponsors' have advised that I should observe the target myself this apparition so I have added it to my observing list (any fast rotator is a binary candidate).
Note that I am NOT ruling out that the target could be a binary, just the assertions based on their published results.
Cheers
|