Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated - Requiem for Relativity
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Astrophysics
 Gravity & Relativity
 Requiem for Relativity
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 72

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 21 Apr 2007 :  05:33:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sorry about that Joe, if you take a look at the place on the image, all you see is a fairly flat grey oval of light. The human eye is not great at differentiating scales of grey, so I used levels to bring out the variations. The white dot in the middle is log scaled to hell. It has structure but its core is actually very dim indeed. Its angle isn't down to the telescope tracking, which makes the stars look like ovals.

It's interesting but the acid test will be if it moves. I'll have a look at it with the next image that comes in but I'm not expecting it to be anything. I just remarked on it because you mentioned the idea of an accretion disk.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 21 Apr 2007 :  20:38:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Sorry about that Joe, if you take a look at the place on the image, all you see is a fairly flat grey oval of light. The human eye is not great at differentiating scales of grey, so I used levels to bring out the variations. The white dot in the middle is log scaled to hell. It has structure but its core is actually very dim indeed. Its angle isn't down to the telescope tracking, which makes the stars look like ovals.

It's interesting but the acid test will be if it moves. I'll have a look at it with the next image that comes in but I'm not expecting it to be anything. I just remarked on it because you mentioned the idea of an accretion disk.



Then indeed it would be well to recheck the object for movement. One of the objects I suspect as Barbarossa ("D" above) has an Optical Infrared glow around it.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 23 Apr 2007 :  10:25:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
What are your thoughts on Sedna and 2003 UB313 then Joe? I note that the old rogue star has been blamed for the wildy eccentric orbits of these.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 23 Apr 2007 :  22:05:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

What are your thoughts on Sedna and 2003 UB313 then Joe? I note that the old rogue star has been blamed for the wildy eccentric orbits of these.



How eccentric are their orbits? Are they merely eccentric or do they have unexplained perturbations?
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 24 Apr 2007 :  00:06:39  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Dot theory" update: high significance.

With a more accurate calculation of Earth parallax, the above-mentioned alignment of presumed centers of gravity of A (1954), C (1987) & D (1997) objects became less perfect. I've been resorting to the IBM486 computer more, to avoid such inaccuracies.

Also, I've found two "disappearing dots" of interest on the B (1986) plate:

"B3" 11 16 51.55 -7 49 41.1

"B" 11 16 56.07 -7 55 14.3.

The following theory is hindered by my lack of success in finding accurately corresponding objects on the C plate. However A2 & A, B3 & B, and J. Genebriera's (March 25) & S. Riley's (April 1) objects (see above for coordinates and other details) seem to correspond to Barbarossa & Frey, resp.

I found accurate heliocentric coordinates for these six objects, using old ephemerides and the above-mentioned "BASIC" computer program. I assumed that all six objects have the same distance from the sun. This distance, 197.7283 AU, was adjusted, as above, so that the overall angular speed 1954-2007 (equivalent to a circular orbit with period 2811.866 yr) would equal that for an elliptical orbit with period 2688.000 yr.

The mass ratio of the contemporaneous pairs of objects was adjusted so that the two great-circle arcs, from center-of-mass A to center-of-mass B and from c.o.m. B to c.o.m. Genebriera/Riley, had exactly the same direction to within a millionth of a radian. The resulting mass ratio was 0.87710:0.12280. Generally there is a ratio which will cause the directions to be the same, because often an equation will have a real solution. Generally a different equation will not be simultaneously satisfied. Here, I found simultaneously that the c.o.m. angular speeds from 1954 to 1986 and from 1986 to 2007 became nearly equal, only a -0.0508% change (-0.001915% per yr). This is typical of the speed change expected in the lower range of possible solar orbital eccentricities.

I checked this graphically as above. By successive approximations at the computer, I found the geocentric coordinates (for G.'s & R.'s objects, coordinates always were adjusted to the midpoint of Genebriera's & Riley's observation times) which would put Genebriera's object on a perfect constant-speed heliocentric great circle with objects A2 & B3. Then I graphed all six objects on the same sheet, with these three points superimposed as the origins for objects of their epoch. I approximated the short great circles between contemporaneous points, as lines, and neglected the nonparallelism of longitude lines. (Also on my graph I neglected the difference between RA degrees & Decl degrees: this changes 0.7% between 6 & 9deg Decl.)

When I found the centers of gravity according to the above ratio, they were, as expected, collinear and showing constant speed. On the graph paper, the errors of the collinearity and of the constancy of speed both were about 1% of the graphed portion, which was in turn about 1% of the total motion; i.e., about 10^(-4) accuracy overall. Translating the Genebriera & Riley objects equally so that Genebriera's object also lay at the origin, I found by quick but generalized searching at the computer, the approximate unique ellipse centered at that origin and passing through the three presumed Frey objects (A, B, and Riley's). The ellipse was tipped 10deg NE-SW (i.e., 37deg to Barbarossa's orbit). The major and minor semiaxes were 0.25deg (0.86 AU) and 0.10deg, resp., giving i=22deg and a total tip for the Barbarossa-Frey system, of 43deg to Barbarossa's solar orbit.

The positions on the presumed orbital circle then were found. This was consistent with an orbital period of 8.3 yr (almost 4 revolutions, 1954-1986, & almost 2.5, 1986-2007) with only 3% discrepancy between the A-B and B-Riley arcs. The total mass Barbarossa+Frey would be 0.0094 solar mass (Barbarossa alone, 0.00825 solar mass).

The theoretical mass at this distance, needed to produced the CMB dipole, was calculated as above using precise 200- or 2000-step trapezoidal rule integration, and found to be 0.0116 solar mass. (Any additional bodies in the Barbarossa-Frey system, unless closely orbiting Barbarossa or Frey, or very distant, would need to have small mass because of the precise motion of the Barbarossa-Frey center of mass).

An inaccuracy in the tidal Pioneer 10/11 acceleration calculation above, was fixed, and the new parameters applied. The net sunward anomalous Pioneer 10/11 acceleration, after subtracting the tidal forces from the presumed 0.0116 solar mass Barbarossa system, at the four distances tabulated by O. Olsen (A&A, op. cit. 2007 above) becomes:

27 AU: 6.03*10^(-8) cm/s^2
45: 5.38* "
52: 5.68* "
63: 4.25* "

The best figure for the Hubble shift is 72 km/s/Mpc, which is equivalent to 7.0*10^(-8) cm/s^2. Assuming that near the sun, the net anomalous acceleration equals the Hubble-equivalent acceleration (the Galileo and Ulysses measurements of the anomalous acceleration lack the accuracy to confirm or refute this) the anomalous acceleration approximates a normal distribution with peak 7.0 and standard deviation 53 AU:


observed/predicted/difference (relative scale, i.e., 7.0*10^(-8) is 1.00)

0 AU: ~1.0+-0.3/1.00/?
27: 0.86/0.88/-0.02
45: 0.77/0.70/0.07
52: 0.81/0.61/0.20
63: 0.61/0.50/0.11

So, accounting for the tidal force of Barbarossa et al, the magnitude of the anomalous acceleration, as a function of radius, approximates a normal curve with standard deviation roughly 53 AU; with a small hump added near 53 AU.

Object A2 has four dimmer disappearing dots within about an arcminute (6,000,000 mi at 198 AU); two of these are a pair about 20" (2,000,000 mi) apart. Object B3 has probably one dimmer disappearing dot about 45" S. Barbarossa is a cold brown dwarf: these might be Barbarossa's inner planets. Frey is Barbarossa's Jupiter. Barbarossa's next-biggest satellite already has been named Freya.

Five additional more-or-less starlike disappearing dots have been found (on my "C", 1987 Red, and "D" 1997 Optical IR) sky survey images, which seem bright enough to be Barbarossa, Frey or Freya and are close enough to fall on the same sheet of graph paper on which I graphed the Barbarossa-Frey orbit. The three telescopes used so far to search prospectively for Barbarossa or Frey have been the 16" telescope of J. Genebriera (Tacande Observatory, Tenerife, Canary Is.), the 11" of S. Riley (Buena Vista Observatory, California, USA) and the 14" of R. Turner (Bradford Observatory, Tenerife, Canary Is.). Comparison with sky surveys shows that the sky survey dots I seek to relocate are near, if not beyond, the detection limits of these telescopes. Genebriera and Riley have achieved, so far, one detection apiece (Barbarossa and Frey, resp., according to this latest theory).
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 24 Apr 2007 :  10:49:15  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sedna (the inuit goddess of war, I think) goes from 76 to 990 AU.

UB313 is now titled Eris (A Greek goddess) I don't know its eccentricity but the drawing up on the web site for it suggests a large eccentricity as well.

I don't know about you but I'm always wary when the explanation of something is a rogue passing sun. I take that as meaning, "we haven't a clue why."

Data on the two objects can be got from here. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

I got image 12 back from the Bradford, should I put it up? As it looks like it will miss the revised position of old Barb. Maybe new jobs put up with a red filter to bring out the dwarf?

Go to Top of Page

Bill_Smith

8 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  01:18:59  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You do not want to use a filter. If the target is at or near the detection limit of the scope adding a filter is just going to make it disappear altogether.

Are these images being calibrated? The last one posted appeared to have a lot of vignetting so it appears it wasn't flat field corrected at least. Without proper calibration the images are going to have a lot of 'noise' making detection of objects unreliable.

Cheers

Bill
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  04:48:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Bill, won't a red filter lighten the reds and dim the blues? Obviously it will mean upping the exposure to compensate for the filter but we're just after movement over two plates. I think it will just come down to the fact that the Bradford isn't big enough to do the job.

(edited)
03 21 36.36 +06 18 17.5 Sedna
01 38 19.71 -04 52 36.5 Eris

So these two are at perigee about 180 degrees from Barb. They are both about Pluto mass, and there must be more of them, which are way out in the boonies at the present time.
Go to Top of Page

Bill_Smith

8 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  08:44:28  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Bob,
No, filters will cut light to the CCD. A Red filter will allow red light through and block the other wavelengths so a red object will appear brighter than a blue object but you have still cut the amount of light getting to the CCD. Whenever dealing with anything close to your detection limit, you do not want to use anything that will limit the amount of light your CCD will receive.

Cheers

Bill
Go to Top of Page

Bill_Smith

8 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  08:51:23  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Bob,

Given the poor racking in NEM10 and 12, will Bradford allow you to select guiding? If not then you might be better off using shorter integrations and then stack the results.

Cheers

Bill
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  15:16:21  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

Sedna (the inuit goddess of war, I think) goes from 76 to 990 AU.

UB313 is now titled Eris (A Greek goddess) I don't know its eccentricity but the drawing up on the web site for it suggests a large eccentricity as well.

I don't know about you but I'm always wary when the explanation of something is a rogue passing sun. I take that as meaning, "we haven't a clue why."

Data on the two objects can be got from here. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

I got image 12 back from the Bradford, should I put it up? As it looks like it will miss the revised position of old Barb. Maybe new jobs put up with a red filter to bring out the dwarf?





Thanks for the info & link. I'm also wary of the rogue sun idea, especially because elsewhere on this site I've theorized that even what little interstellar red- & blueshift there seems to be, might be mostly non-Doppler.

If convenient, please do put the image up. Somebody else might find something before I do. The Bradford photos have improved dramatically and I have high hopes for them. It's OK if the coordinates are a little off because the still-uncertain Barbarossa-Frey orbit introduces several arcminutes uncertainty.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  15:28:12  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bill_Smith

You do not want to use a filter. If the target is at or near the detection limit of the scope adding a filter is just going to make it disappear altogether.

Are these images being calibrated? The last one posted appeared to have a lot of vignetting so it appears it wasn't flat field corrected at least. Without proper calibration the images are going to have a lot of 'noise' making detection of objects unreliable.

Cheers

Bill



Dear Bill,

Thanks for your expert input. I mostly look at Red sky survey plates because these are the commonest, and have the best resolution and sensitivity.

Stars are rather sparse in this part of the sky. It hasn't been too laborious to rule them out by comparison with plate images.

- Joseph C. Keller
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  15:38:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Now, I have more reason to think the Bradford Observatory might be big enough to do the job: Steve Riley read my last major post and emailed me that he's not using a 16", he's using an 11"! This is with maximum personal care and attention, though.

correction 6/24/08: 8", not 11"
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  16:14:19  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
On the Sedna problem. The only thing I can think of at the moment, is the idea that masses clump much much earlier than we thought. A gas cloud that splits into two unequal portions. One becomes our sun, the other a brown dwarf. This thing is about a light year across and there are other clouds in the cosmic nursery which are quite close. If matter starts to clump at this very early stage, it might explain why Sedna and co have such large eccentricities. They could be nearly as old as the cosmic cloud from which they are born. In a sense they get left behind when the planets move closer into the parent sun. They are left in these daft orbits as the cosmic nursery breaks up. The problem would then be to explain how an event such as a nova, can cause particles int eh cloud to collapse into fairly large masses so quickly.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 25 Apr 2007 :  16:30:31  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
"Dot update"

One of my five additional nearby starlike disappearing Sky Survey dots, is

"C11" (Jan 31 1987, SERC Red) Strasbourg "Aladin" RA 11 18 00.41 Decl -8 01 57.7

Assuming this is Frey and that my previous post is valid, I find with my IBM 486 "BASIC" program above, that Barbarossa should be on this 1987 plate at

11 18 03.006 -7 56 29.4.

There is a magnitude +19 star at

11 18 02.80 -7 56 21.8.

This star seems brighter relative to its neighbors, on this 1987 La Silla sky survey vs. the 1986 "UK Red" sky survey. Its R1 & R2 USNO-B catalog magnitudes are nearly equal, but the documentation doesn't reveal the relative influence of the two or three plates used to compute each magnitude. So, it might be a nonresolved conjunction, or (less likely) occultation.

My computerized Earth parallax correction uses the sun's apparent position. Barbarossa orbits the center of gravity of the solar system: including Jupiter & Saturn. Saturn was near quadrature with Barbarossa then, so its influence changed little between 1986 & 1987. On the other hand, Jupiter was nearly opposite Barbarossa. Jupiter's 30 degree motion in one year would subtract about 0.15s RA from Barbarossa's predicted apparent position in 1987, vs. 1986. So, only the predicted and observed Declinations of the star are significantly discrepant.

My very first discovered sky survey "Barbarossa" object, "C", lies 145" exactly S of the predicted position of Barbarossa. My pixel analysis of this object indicated that it is at least two different unresolved objects (the center of luminosity doesn't lie in the brightest pixel). Object C might be an unresolved conjunction of two of Barbarossa's inner planets. (Such "inner planets" appear on the A and B plates.) If so, then these planet(s) would need 6% the mass of Barbarossa, to move the center of gravity of the non-Frey, inner, portion of Barbarossa's system, 145*0.06/1.06 = 8" S. This would place the predicted Barbarossa at the coordinates of the observed star.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 28 Apr 2007 :  06:50:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Talking to Bill via e mail about brown dwarfs, he mentioned that he thought that Barbarossa was already taken. i did a check on the JPL Horizons site and it has indeed been taken by an asteroid.

Sooo, I think it should be called the planet "Billgates." Billgates was a Greek mythological god, the god of dodgy operating systems That should be worth a few backhanders from a man who shall remain nameless
Go to Top of Page

Bill_Smith

8 Posts

Posted - 29 Apr 2007 :  18:29:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe,

I should point out that there are no disappearing/moving objects on Bobs NEM10 and 12 images. The disappearing dots are artifacts. The Minimum FWHM of every stellar object in the images was 5.1" indicating poor seeing and/or poor focus and the targets you identified had a FWHM of 1.3". Given the image resolution was 1.48"/pixel this indicates hot pixels.

Cheers

Bill
Go to Top of Page

Bill_Smith

8 Posts

Posted - 29 Apr 2007 :  18:49:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Let Bill Gates know you want to name such a potentially important object after him and he may fund all your search efforts. I think he's got a few dollars to spare.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 01 May 2007 :  07:29:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
We'd have to pronounce the name as Billgatease, in order to sneak it past the powers that be. They'd be angry once the realised they'd been duped but the money would be in the bank account by then

I was thinking about Sedna and Eris. if the sun condensed out of a pure gas cloud, then its diameter at the start would be about 14 light years. That's saying that we have about one atom per cubic centimeter. So, add some dust. The ratio for clouds near us is about 1 in a hundred. Not much change in the radius then. So, let's say that in the early stage of star formation we have a build up of dust particles. Further let's say that when two atoms combine, their aether "atmosphere" increases in extent and this breaks some of the angular momentum of the cloud. Something like watching the bubbles in the centre of your coffee cup merging into one.

If we have Sedna sized chunks of stuff form early on, then their orbits would be effected by the nearest new star to ours in the nursery. Then the whole thing pulls in towards what we see today.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
956 Posts

Posted - 01 May 2007 :  17:11:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Bill_Smith

Hi Joe,

I should point out that there are no disappearing/moving objects on Bobs NEM10 and 12 images. The disappearing dots are artifacts. The Minimum FWHM of every stellar object in the images was 5.1" indicating poor seeing and/or poor focus and the targets you identified had a FWHM of 1.3". Given the image resolution was 1.48"/pixel this indicates hot pixels.

Cheers

Bill



Dear Bill,

Thanks for letting me know what you found on these Bradford Observatory photos.

- Joe Keller
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 72  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated © © 2002-? Meta Research Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.88 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03