This article has the following sections.
A Ritzian Interpretation of Variable Stars
Non-pulsating Cepheid Variables
Ritzian Gamma-Ray Bursts
Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays
Unsung Binaries and de Sitter's Whimsical Images?
GRB 790731 and omega Geminorum
GRB 790731 and omega Geminorum
Copyright © 2001-2004 Robert S. Fritzius
Installed 7 May 2001 - Latest Update 27 Jul 2016
Corrections or additions are in bold.
Omega Geminorum (omega Gem) was reported to be a Cepheid variable in the mid 70's(1)
but in 1989 it was found to be non-variable(2). [The tone of this second reference
seemed to imply that if omega Gem was not variable right then, then it never was.]
In between these studies the peculiar Gamma-ray burst, GRB 790731, occurred
in close proximity to omega Gem. From a
Ritzian relativity viewpoint [source velocity additive
to speed of light] the time profile of GRB 790731 can be interpreted as the record of
a close binary system (more likely a triplet comprised of a G5 star and two closely interacting
neutron stars) undergoing a catastrophic change of state.
The following time profiles for GRB 790731 are from the Catalog of
Cosmic Gamma-ray Bursts from the KONUS experimental Data, Part III. (3).
Information on the KONUS experiment is available at the
Venera 11 & Venera 12 webpage, published by NASA.
in Earth orbit, was used to complete a triangulation network with the Venera duo.
Here the profiles have been smoothed to remove the bulk of scintillation effects.
The smoothing function used was:
N(i)smoothed = ( N(i-1) + N(i) + N(i+1) ) / 3.
A first examination shows what appears to be nine cyclic peaks occurring in a 35
second period. Closer examination suggests the superposition of two separate
The following diagram shows the one sigma quadrangular localization box
and triangulation ring for GRB 790731 on a star chart which includes omega Geminorum.
The data table in the KONUS catalog gives, for the triangulation ring, a radius
of 0.66 degrees +2.7 / -0.66 degrees. This remarkably small radius must result from
the burst being almost directly in line with the Venera 11 and 12 spacecraft. (All other
triangulation rings in the subject study have radii ranging from 29 to 87 degrees.)
The likelihood that the line of sight to GRB 790731 was "inside" the one sigma error box,
shown above, is 50 percent. If we construct a 90 percent likelihood error box box it should
be about 2.5 times larger on each side than for the one sigma box. (The GRB triangulation
ring almost kisses omega Gem.) The idea here is to see if omega Gem could
be considered as an optical counterpart of the GRB.
The following paragraph and quote were inserted on 25 August 2002. (The
delay in including this info had to do with a belief system in turmoil. There is
still a problem in that department!)
On 14 May 2001 E.P. Mazets, primary investigator for the KONUS experiment,
furnished the following good news - bad news regarding GRB 790731 and
Our data you have used are given with accuracy of one sigma.
From this point of view, omega Gem lies inside both localization
boxes. However, there is a third localization of GRB 790731.
That is triangulation Venera 11(12) and Pioneer Venus Orbiter data.
This very narrow ( +/-0.06 deg ) triangulation annulus passes
about four degrees away from omega Gem.
An updated GRB 170731 localization diagram is shown here to reflect the import
of Dr. Mazets' remarks. The implied radius and center of the added
triangulation annulus (shown in red) are rough approximations. (Added 13
In this writer's opinion, the location of the +/-0.06 deg annulus may be questionable.
(Recognition that the following argument may actually be a stalling of the invetible
is also noted.) The potential problem here has to do with speed-of-light
considerations. (The whole thrust of this article is that, within the confines of
extinction-limited volumes of space, the velocities of sources are vectorially
additive with the velocity of light.) If anybody's space platform location process involves
constant speed of light beacon tracking, but c+v conditions actually
exist, then we have a problem. Readers are referred to the article, Astronomical Constants
and Planetary Ephemerides Deduced from Radar and Optical Observations(4). According
to that study, when RADAR sites on opposite sides of Earth (U.S. and U.S.S.R.)
simultaneously tracked Venus (and all three observation groups used a constant
speed-of-light in their ranging calculations) there were significant opposite sides
of the world differences in the measured ranges to Venus . (Added 2 Sep 2002 -
Updated 22 October 2002.)
Quoting from the referenced article. "Although not apparent from inspection of Fig. 4,
the residuals of the U.S.S.R. time delay data are systematically negative relative to the
Arecibo and Lincoln Laboratory residuals during the time period (June 1964) when all
three groups were observing Venus. This incompatibility cannot be removed by
assuming simply that different units of time were used by the different observatories.
The apparent discrepancy of up to five times the quoted measurement error thus
remains unexplained." Ref. (4) pp. 343-344. In this author's opinion, those
differences were related to c+v effects brought about by the daily rotation
of Earth. Thanks to
Bryan Wallace for calling attention to this information. (Added 22 October 2002.)
Getting back to Omega gem.
A literature search regarding the variability of omega Gem is in progress.
If omega Gem was variable after 31 July 1979 or if it was non-variable
before that date, then the premise of this investigation will be falsified.
[In light of other findings, this statement turns out to be short
sighted and overly restrictive. See the next two paragraphs.]
In 1998-1999 omega Gem was observed to be variable.
See the 1999 VSNET
Light Curve of omega Gem. (Installed on 22 August 2002.)
It turns out that there are variables whose variabilities undergo
periodic changes in amplitude. Some of their long period light curves look like
pulse trains being turned on and off by a longer period square wave.
In other cases, part of the variability waxes and wanes very gradually, sometimes
decreasing all the way to zero. Light curves for two of these varying variability
variables are shown in
Light Curves of Variable Stars: A Pictorial Atlas, C. Sterken, C.
Jaschek (Editors), Cambridge University Press,. For HR3831, see Fig. 4.5, p. 116.
For Z Cam, see Fig. 5.29, p.154.
Another line of investigation to be pursued has to do with the proper and
radial motions of omega Gem before and after 31 July 1979. If the star
was an intrinsically radially pulsating variable that quit pulsating (for
whatever reason) we should not expect to find any change in its velocity.
On the other hand, if components of multiple star system interacted
catastrophically and one or more of them (dark companions) departed
the pattern, so to speak, then we might expect to see a velocity change
in the remaining visible component.
The author's Tribody.bas computer program has been tailored to simulate the
interactions of multiple star systems (a G5 star and two neutron stars, at
present). Ritz's c+v relativity has been incorporated to produce light curves
suitable for evaluating the possible connection between KONUS 790731 and
the cessation of the variability of omega Geminorum. This software, which
is still in the "shaky" phase is downloadable as an ASCII file and can be
run in Quick BASIC. You may click on O-GEM.BAS
and save it for off line use.
Presently the computer code being used strictly models gravitational interactions.
As a result of this, the light curve spikes (DEFG below) associated with the
transitional phase (Cepheid to non-Cepheid) are time-wise much more spread
out than for the nine or so spikes in 35 seconds of KONUS 790731. The time
between the Cepheid-like bumps at the first (ABC)correspond to a period
of approximately 17 hours (0.7 day).
If warranted, electrodynamic interactions between the neutron stars will be added
in a future version of the program.
The following section was added on 24 January 2002.
In private correspondence (12 January 2002) Göran Henriksson provided an update
on further research about the pre-1976 variability of omega Gem. The
following material is a thumbnail sketch of that update.
Twelve observations, up through 1975, showed a significant variation in brightness of
omega Gem, with a period of about 1.2 days. (Eight other observations are presently
unavailable due to a closed library.) Plots of B-V and U-B colours, as a function of
V-magnitude, reveal a phase relation between omega Gem's apparent radial
velocity curve and its brightness curve which is similar to that observed for long-period
[The radial velocity curves, related to absorption lines, for LPVs are flip-flopped phase-wise
as compared to those for Cepheids.] See Merrill (5) and Joy (6) for some classic, but long
overlooked, studies into long-period variables. (Based on an
earlier reported period of 0.73 days, without a detailed colour analysis, omega Gem was
originally tagged as being a Cepheid. See
McMaster Cepheid Photometry and Radial Velocity Data Archive. Click on
Classical Cepheids and slide down to the Gemini entries.)
[In essence, Henriksson is saying that omega Gem is not a Cepheid after all.]
Henriksson has proposed a model that omega-Gem (for the observations that he has)
is/was a binary system comprised of a yellow G5Ib-II supergiant and a much smaller red
companion (brighter than a red dwarf) with the red component circling inside the
supergiant's atmosphere at a depth of about 10 percent of the latter's radius. (Henriksson
and his colleagues at Upsalla Observatory do not believe this to be a useful model.)
Readers are invited to review Mira Variables, another
subsection of this article, to examine a proposal that some stars do, in fact, plow
around (sub-surface) in red giants.
(1) G. Henriksson, (1977) Astron & Astrophys, 54, 309.
(2) E. Poretti, et.al., (1989) Comission 27 IAU, Information
Bulletin on Variable Stars Number 3300
(3) E. P. Mazets, S. V. Golenetskii, V. N. Ilyinskii, V. N. Panov,
R. L. Apekar, Yu. A. Guryan, M. P. Proskura, I. A. Sokolov,
Z. Ya. Sokolova, T.V. Kharitonova, A. V. Dyatchkov and
Astrophysics and Space Science, 80, (1981) 85. - See Figure 20 on page 94.
(4) M.E. Ash, I.I. Shapiro, and W. H. Smith, The Astronomical Journal,
72, 338, 1967.
(5) P.W. Merrill, (1940) Spectra of Long-Period Variable Stars, University of
(6) A.H. Joy, (1954) Ap. J. Supp. 1, 39.