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 - 06 Apr 2009 :  05:19:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi Joe, the question of , whether your planet was considerably brighter in antiquity, would become an important one, once you have incontrovertible photographic proof. To talk at any length about it now will only give astronomers the excuse they need to not bother themselves about it.

Likewise with Al Gore, he got burned over a far too simplistic argument about co2, his advisors will be very wary of talk about new planets.

I think you should try that guy mentioned a number of posts ago, I think he's called Biggilow. Offer to send him your program. He will see your planet as a vindication of his belief in a companion star, and he's a multi millionaire. If anything can get a large telescope pointed at the sky it's a man with a fist full of money.
Go to Top of Page

nemesis

84 Posts

Posted - 06 Apr 2009 :  09:07:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have to second Stoat here, Joe. The strength of your argument is that you have made a testable prediction. You just have to convince somebody with the means to test it. But all this talk about 2012, ancient Egypt, etc. seems counter-productive.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 06 Apr 2009 :  15:52:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I also think the unrelated stuff pollutes the basic question and agree with Sloat and Nemesis.
Go to Top of Page

cosmicsurfer

USA
507 Posts

Posted - 06 Apr 2009 :  16:46:17  Show Profile  Visit cosmicsurfer's Homepage  Send cosmicsurfer a Yahoo! Message  Reply with Quote
I disagree, I think Joe has a right to look at ancient data that might indicate past encounters with our sister sun. Besides it is time that we end the suppression of information, and lay out on the table all of the data. I call what we have now with our suppressive scientific limited thinking counter productive!!!! There are ruins on Mars from a very ancient civilization, are we going to continue to suppress this information? I know that I am very interested in what Joe has to say about our past. John
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
37 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2009 :  10:30:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by cosmicsurfer

I disagree, I think Joe has a right to look at ancient data that might indicate past encounters with our sister sun. Besides it is time that we end the suppression of information, and lay out on the table all of the data. I call what we have now with our suppressive scientific limited thinking counter productive!!!! There are ruins on Mars from a very ancient civilization, are we going to continue to suppress this information? I know that I am very interested in what Joe has to say about our past. John



I agree with you. Nevertheless, we must not forget that without falsifiable claims, observation and verification, we wouldn't go very far.

In that sense, I was thinking that maybe a "bottoms-up" approach to these matters could be helpful: Instead of searching the sky for "disappearing dots", why not to begin by taking into account the actual known anomalies, and their magnitudes, and proceed from there to the layout of testable hypotesis and models.

Take, for example, the flyby anomaly; maybe developing a new gravitational model to explain it.

Or the bore-hole anomalies, reported and analized by Cahill.

Or the recently announced GP-B results.

Or so called Kimura phenomena. In an old post, I suggested to compare the rate of Earth's axial precession related to the Sun, to the precession rate related to the Polar star. Any difference will be the component of the Sun's movement on the plane of the ecpliptic, after correcting for Earth's axial tilt, and for the known planetary effects.

That way, we would be able to get a clear idea of the magnitude and direction of the Sun movement, and rule out then many possible companions.
The same can be done with the recent GP-B results. After that, the magnitudes can be compared, etc.

This is by no means easy, but has the great advantage of working with known data, and of making falsifiable and verifiable hypotesis and models.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2009 :  11:40:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks for your input, Stoat, nemesis, Jim, cosmicsurfer & Maurol! Those are some of the most incisive posts I've ever read! There are a lot of good ideas there.

Yesterday I searched two recent books on Egyptian temples:

McKenzie, The Architecture of Alexandria & Egypt 300BC-AD700, 2007
Wilkinson, Temples of Ancient Egypt, 2000

From their temple diagrams, I confirmed Belmonte & Shaltout's claim about temple orientation. A priori, it isn't significant that 12 of 133 temples (Shaltout & Belmonte Paper 1, 2005; Table 1) would face rising or setting stars at Declinations between 7 & 14 or -7 & -14. This becomes significant, because most of the remaining temples face accurately NSEW or multiples of 45deg, or face the summer solstice sunrise. (Astronomer Mahmoud-Bey's archaeological 1866 street map of ancient Alexandria, confirmed by subsequent researchers, reprinted in McKenzie, Ch. 2, Fig. 20, shows that Alexandria's long avenues are not very parallel to the seashore, but rather aim, according to my ruler measurement, 24.6deg N of E; the summer solstice sunrise at that latitude, about 31.19 N measured from my National Geographic atlas, then was, neglecting refraction, 27.73 N of E, and 27.71 N of E now, due to presumed slight reduction in Earth's obliquity from 23.455 then to 23.439 now.)

I found two temple ground plans in McKenzie and two in Wilkinson, conforming to Shaltout & Belmonte's observed alignment of temples generally with Declination 11 1/4 (+/-) 3/4. These are:

1. The Ptolemaic-era Komasterion (Procession House) "bastion" at Hermopolis Magna (el-Ashmunein, N of Mallawi)(McKenzie Ch. 7, Fig. 272, p. 161). By averaging five ruler, and tracing graph paper, measurements on the page, I find that the steps face 13.66 +/- 0.42 SEM, S of W. The more used part of the temple (with the altar) is at 90 deg to this; maybe the older part was remodelled into what later became the "bastion". Anyway, at this latitude (27.79 N measured from the Natl. Geog. atlas) a star at Declination +12.10 (Barbarossa, one orbit before 12/21/2012) would rise 13.70 N of E, neglecting refraction. Here my theory is that the bastion represents the oldest temple, and originally faced 180deg the other way, toward Barbarossa's rising.

2. The Christian "Great Basilica" (at Abu Mina, 65km SW of Alexandria)(McKenzie, Ch. 11, Fig. 481d, p. 289). The church (i.e. nave --> door vector), by my three measurements, faces 11.36 +/- 0.17 SEM, S of W. A star at Declination +10.50 (i.e, Barbarossa 150 yr later than in #1) would rise 12.24 deg N of E, neglecting refraction (here I estimate the latitude as 30.78 N). Churches often were built squarely on the foundations of pagan temples, even when the temple was much smaller than the eventual church (e.g. McKenzie, Fig. 475, p. 286). Again my theory is that originally the temple faced 180deg the other way, toward Barbarossa's rising.

3. Akhenaten's Great Temple at El-Amarna (Wilkinson, p. 140)(lat 27.66 N). Wilkinson's maps have shorter "N" arrows, but by my measurement, less accurate than for #1 or #2, the sanctuary --> entrance axis, faces 11.9 S of E. A star of Declination +10.50, would rise here at azimuth 11.87 N of E, neglecting refraction, and of course set 11.87 N of W. So, though Akhenaten's temple is said to have been built on a new site, temples oriented this way might originally have faced toward the setting Barbarossa. When Akhenaten was overthrown, 1500 blocks from El-Amarna went into the temple complex at Hermopolis Magna (see #1).

4. The Hibis Temple at El-Kharga (Wilkinson, p. 235)(lat 24.81 N). Unlike the other three, this temple (still?) faces North: 11.3 N of E by my measurement on the page. A star of Declination +10.50 would rise here at azimuth 11.58 N of E, neglecting refraction. Though built mainly during the Persian era, the Hibis temple might have been started in the 25th Dynasty. Texts say an Amun-Re temple was built here during the New Kingdom, but no remnant of any such predecessor has been found.


Besides these, are the 12 "Upper Egypt & Lower Nubia" temples listed in Shaltout & Belmonte, Paper 1, Table 1, which face stars rising or setting at Declinations (+/-) 10.5 (+/-) 3.5 deg. Seven of these face SE, two SW and three NW. As I mentioned before, the three facing NW, correspond to Declination +12.1 +/-0.6 SEM, as calculated by Belmonte & Shaltout. These are (information gleaned from the internet, especially globalegyptianmuseum.org & egyptsites.wordpress.com ):

1. The temple of Montu at Medamud. A falcon-headed solar God from the Old Kingdom, associated with war since the 11th Dynasty, his temple is in ruins and closed to visitors. Though built during the Ptolemaic era, it was built on an earlier temple (maybe 12th Dynasty, i.e. Middle Kingdom) now destroyed, and in turn, that might have been built on an even earlier temple. It had a well, lake, granary, and ram-headed sphinxes.

2. The temple of Khnum at Aswan, on "Elephantine I." (named for rocks resembling bathing elephants): an important ram-headed creation God. Though Table 1 says Roman era, internet sources say 30th Dynasty (with a doorway by Alexander), maybe started in 18th Dynasty, and certainly overlying yet another temple. A 3rd dynasty granite step pyramid, and predynastic artifacts, are nearby. The nearby temple of Khnum's consort Satis, was built during the 18th dynasty, overlying: Middle Kingdom remains, a 6th Dynasty temple, and an Early Dynastic shrine.

3. The temple of Arensnuphis (a.k.a. Arsnuphis; "Arsnuphis belongs to northern Egypt..." - Margaret A. Murray, "Egyptian Temples", 1977; p. 187) at Filae (south of Aswan; moved in the 1970s). Though built during the Ptolemaic era, it was begun in the 30th Dynasty, using blocks of the 25th Dynasty original, plus some 19th Dynasty blocks. The last hieroglyphic inscription here is 394AD (!); its worship was ended by Justinian.

It seems that the Egyptian temples built last (Ptolemaic & Roman) really are generally the most important, popular and much-rebuilt temples. Few temples have had their foundations excavated much, and records (e.g., for the Hibis Temple) show that predecessor temples sometimes have existed though excavation found nothing. For religious and architectural reasons, foundation orientations tend to be preserved.

Some important temples face a setting (Montu, Khnum, Arensnuphis) or rising (Hibis) star of Declination +10.2 to +12.8. Maybe temples were aligned with Barbarossa during a 150 year brightening period during which Barbarossa's Declination was +12, decreasing to +10.5. Monument 6 at Tortuguero, Mexico, says "Bolon descends": i.e. was descending in ecliptic latitude, and Declination, in its orbit then; will be descending again this time; or, by 2012, will have descended in Declination due to equinox precession - all true. If the layouts of Egyptian temples were set during the 1500yr period from 4300BC to 2800BC (start of 3rd Dynasty) then I would expect 1/10 of them to be aligned with Barbarossa, as is the case.

I suppose, about equal numbers of temples faced Barbarossa's rising and setting. Egyptians liked temples facing the Nile; this would tend to split the number half & half, E & W. The preference for the rising sun, would favor an E face, but the preference for an evening star (when people are at more leisure to enjoy the view) would favor a W face. As "Bolon" (= bolus, ball), perhaps like a "second Sun", faded and was forgotten, temples tended to be rebuilt with doors facing south for light and warmth. The sunrise preference made NW-SE temples likelier to be rebuilt than NE-SW temples. Someone noticed that when the Sun's Declination was -11, it was about the right time to plant.

The optimum planting time would have been too debatable, and the floods and agricultural practice too variable from year to year, or century to century, to restrict temple orientations within a range of two degrees. Much later, central authority might decree a planting day, but in a calendar lacking (until Hellenistic times) a leap year, even this wouldn't narrow the range; besides, the foundations of all the predecessor temples had been laid.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2009 :  13:57:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
About anomalies-is there a list of Earthly movments forced by plate tectonics? The surface of Earth is moving at a rate about one nanometer per second and I never see any reference to that anomaly or other motions of the plates.
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
37 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2009 :  18:52:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

About anomalies-is there a list of Earthly movments forced by plate tectonics? The surface of Earth is moving at a rate about one nanometer per second and I never see any reference to that anomaly or other motions of the plates.



Hi,
These are not anomalies, but (relatively) known movements.
You're right that these movements must also be taken into account.
I think that they are routinely accounted for, when adjusting the local time and latitude of telescopes and astrolabes.
Indeed, there are papers discussing physical explanations of and even earthquake prediction models based on an irregular variation of these factors. See by example
http://www.springerlink.com/content/hw512p95131t6238/
and
http://www.springerlink.com/content/7m511872vr614176/
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 07 Apr 2009 :  20:41:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Maurol, Thats good to learn. What about the barycenter detail? Over look the eliptical orbit and focus on the relative position of the Earth/moon sun. The barycenter model has the Earth is nearer the sun when the moon is full and further at new moon so the moon pushes the Earth. When the fact is just the opposite-the Earth is nearer the sun at new moon-further at full moon. How do star guys correct that?
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
37 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2009 :  09:35:38  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Maurol, Thats good to learn. What about the barycenter detail? Over look the eliptical orbit and focus on the relative position of the Earth/moon sun. The barycenter model has the Earth is nearer the sun when the moon is full and further at new moon so the moon pushes the Earth. When the fact is just the opposite-the Earth is nearer the sun at new moon-further at full moon. How do star guys correct that?



When the Moon is full it is "opposed" to the Sun, with the Earth in between; then the Earth is further from the Sun due to the influence of the Moon.
And viceversa.
Star guys have different coordinate systems, and they use the most complex(i.e. solar system barycentric) when great accuracy is needed.

The corrections are based on a gravitational model (a mathematical simulation) of the solar system, I suppose.

Plus the correction of the Moon influence on Earth, other similar corrections are also needed, because the solar system barycenter changes, mostly due to the influence of Jupiter and Saturn, but also due to all the other planets.
Download ssbarycenter.gsim, from gravitysimulator.com, to see the effect of the different planets on the movement of the Solar System barycenter.

I was thinking that the Sun movement can be probably hidden in (at least) three places:
1) My previous "apparent precession" expositions. That is, into the dynamics of the orbits of the planets themselves. Discussed in previous posts.
2) The duration of the second itself (i.e. the "leap seconds" issue). Again, discussed in previous posts.
3) The difference between the number of solar days and sidereal days in a year being exactly one. If the Sun moves "laterally" (with a component of displacement over the ecliptic plane) the number of sidereal days in a year must not be exactly one more that the number of solar days, but slightly more (or less) than one solar day.
And I'm inclined to think that it will be more than one solar day, not less; that is, I'm thinking that the Sun is moving into an "orbit" with the same direction as most of the planets are.

A combination, overlapping, or even partial cancellation of these factors can be possible, of course.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2009 :  15:36:24  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Sidereal days and solar days are fit in the same solar year? The difference in a solar and sidereal year is ~1/4 day. About the barycenter-the model I have seen indicates the the Earth/moon system barycenter orbits the sun and the math is done with that built-in error. In actual fact the barycenter is nearer the sun at New Moon and further at Full Moon. In the case of 1st&3rd quarter moon the Earth/moon system is moving at a different rate in its orbit around the sun. Its faster at 3rd quarter and slower at 1st quarter. How do star guys correct for that? That motion would account for spring and neap tide height rather than assuming the math used is correct.
Go to Top of Page

Maurol

Argentina
37 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2009 :  16:26:42  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Jim

Sidereal days and solar days are fit in the same solar year?



Yes, of course. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_day

"Another way to see this difference is to notice that, relative to the stars, the Sun appears to move around the Earth once per year. Therefore, there is one less solar day per year than there are sidereal days. This makes a sidereal day approximately 365.24/366.24 times the length of the 24-hour solar day, giving approximately 23 hours, 56 minutes, 4.1 seconds (86,164.1 seconds)."

quote:
The difference in a solar and sidereal year is ~1/4 day.


The difference is the mentioned above(one day), because related to the stars, it is like the Sun makes one revolution around the Earth in a year. In other words: when the Earth returns to the equivalent position in its orbit around the Sun, 366.24 revolutions have been elapsed, related to the stars, because the Sun has also "orbited" the Earth once.

I now think that this is anyways irrelevant, because the Sun movement is in fact hidden/masked in the orbital dynamics of the planets.
That is: we can consider that there is exactly one more sidereal day than solar days per year(we can leave that fixed), and the other elements are enough to mask or compensate for the Sun's(the Solar system, actually) movement.

quote:

About the barycenter-the model I have seen indicates the the Earth/moon system barycenter orbits the sun and the math is done with that built-in error. In actual fact the barycenter is nearer the sun at New Moon and further at Full Moon. In the case of 1st&3rd quarter moon the Earth/moon system is moving at a different rate in its orbit around the sun. Its faster at 3rd quarter and slower at 1st quarter. How do star guys correct for that? That motion would account for spring and neap tide height rather than assuming the math used is correct.



I suppose that that difference is not taken into consideration for most, if not all, measurements and observations. But I don't know for sure.
Go to Top of Page

Jim

1848 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2009 :  17:19:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well, don't you think the moon causes more motion of interest than say Mars or other minor player in these motions?
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2009 :  19:48:51  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Shaltout & Belmonte, "On the Orientation of Ancient Egyptian Temples (3)...", Journal for the History of Astronomy 38:141-160, 2007

This article, so hard to find on the internet, is on the shelf at Iowa State Univ. Sec. III, p. 154: "...average declination of ~ 11 3/4 deg would include temples orientated to a peculiar interval of positive and negative declinations between +/- 11 and +/- 13 deg...". Fig. 6, p. 148, shows that if the pyramid-related temples are omitted, then by far the most Declinations correspond to NSEW orientation, but after these, the next tallest histogram peak (peak 3) is that of temples corresponding to Declination +12.69 (by my ruler measurement and interpolation on their graph)(not -, only + !).

Sec. III, p. 155, footnote 28 (p. 159): "A striking parallelism might be established for the '17deg family' of orientations in ancient Mesoamerica." Checking their reference and a prior article by that author, I find Sprajc, Latin American Antiquity 11:403+, 2000, which says that the early first millenium AD city of Teotihuacan (19deg42' N), which seems to have been imitated by other great cities, shows two alignments in its layout, skewed 15.5 & 16.5deg clockwise from the cardinal directions.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 08 Apr 2009 :  20:12:49  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hathor and Crater

Wm. T. Olcott, "Star Lore of All Ages" (digitized by Google), p. 166, refers to an ancient Egyptian vase with a poem relating the constellation Crater, to Nile floods. Crater was one of the astronomer Ptolemy's 48 constellations. Ptolemy's Almagest lists only seven stars for Crater, forming a "V" shape.

Here is a speculation: Crater originally symbolized the horns of Hathor, the early Egyptian cow-Goddess (who already quite early was being depicted as a stately horned woman: see the statue of Mycerinus flanked by Hathor and another Goddess, in, inter alia, Lange, "Egypt", 4th ed., 1968; pl. 39). (Later, Isis absorbed Hathor's appearance.) Barbarossa will lie between the handles of Crater (horns of Hathor?) only a few years after 2012.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2009 :  06:09:37  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This might be worth a look, http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/spitzerf-20051129.html
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 09 Apr 2009 :  07:23:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thinking about this a it more, there' no way that I can accept that ancient peoples could ever have seen this thing. A twentieth mag star suddenly brightens by fourteen magnitudes. That's just to make it visible to the naked eye. For it to have been noticeable it had to have brightened much more than that. That is an explosive event, alternatively, if it were a sustained event, covering a few hundred years then we have a problem of by what mechanism could it do it. There are thousands of brown dwarfs within a few hundred light years of us, statistically we should have seen at least one sudden flare up, unless such events are extremely rare.

I honestly think you are in great danger of shooting yourself in the foot over this line of reasoning. Astronomers can afford to wait, they could well wait until you had popped your clogs. They might well argue that they don't much want to share a press conference with someone that might launch into a lecture on the secret wisdom of the ancients. They are not knaves, they will give you the credit for the discovery, it's just that it will be a posthumous one.
Go to Top of Page

Stoat

United Kingdom
964 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2009 :  06:37:55  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A bit more thought about this. A brown dwarf radiates very quickly, it's atmosphere is at about 2500 K and as it's temperature drops it turns into a methane rich atmosphere. at about 1500 K

Let's suppose it does this explosively, then the magnitude increase would be down largely to reflected Sol light. This would scare the hell out of me, let alone ancient peoples. We would have a few months of a rather baleful bright star of a magenta hue. The eye of Mordor anyone

Brown dwarfs in our near neighbourhood could go unnoticed unless they have a star that can shine off the expanded envelope.

This still means that it's best to put the ancient wisdom argument onto the back burner. I'd put the emphasis on Tom's notion of exploding planets being mistaken for supernova but think of this in terms of brown dwarfs.

(Edited) How's about we stick in some ball park figures and see if we can come up with the mass that needs to be ejected from what amounts to a mini red giant phase. Somewhere between a Sirius and a Venus I would think. A daylight magenta Venus like object would be talked about for generations. They still talk about Alexander the great in the middle east as if he walked about yesterday. A global blood gem in the sky myth sounds good to me.
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2009 :  12:57:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
(email to journalist, 1 hr. ago, ~11AM CDT 4/10/09)

Hi *******!

Archaeoastronomical and modern astronomical evidence says something really will happen on 2012. Four online sky surveys show a transient object on a 6340 yr orbit (the object itself never would come near Earth). This orbital period correlates with geologic & climate changes approx. 6300 (El Nino) & 12700 (Younger Dryas) yrs ago.

So far, I haven't been able to recruit any telescopes bigger than 17 in, in the effort to confirm, and the results are equivocal due to noise and faint images (the object has "Red" colorimetric magnitude approx. +19 on red filter sky surveys, and isn't visible on blue filter surveys; likely, it's gravitationally collapsed). According to the idea of Paul Wesson, the *known* solar system's angular momentum is abnormally low. Urbain LeVerrier, David Todd, Percival Lowell, Wallace Eckert, Robert Harrington and many other great astronomers have believed that orbital data show perturbations compatible with such a distant, massive planet.

The Maya didn't know about precession of the equinoxes, so couldn't have predicted the solstice, to the day, at Dec. 21, 2012 (1500 yr in their future). Greek astronomers (e.g. Aristarchus) might have been able, in the 3rd century BC or earlier (Ptolemy wasn't accurate enough, but his method easily could have been "accurized" in Hellenistic scientific literature among the 90% of Classical literature now lost).

My discovery (Lowell's "Planet X", which I've named "Barbarossa" from the prologue to a novel by Berry Fleming) might flare up periodically at the times of its effects on the inner Solar System. If so, Egyptians would have identified it with Horus, in the constellation Crater, which they seem to have identified with Hathor's horns (Hathor = hwt Hor = house of Horus; the rising Crater looks like the peaked house Egyptians would have had before desertification). Many Egyptian temple foundations inexplicably align with the rising or setting of a star at the declination Barbarossa would have had then.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D. (B.A., Harvard, 1977)
Go to Top of Page

Joe Keller

USA
957 Posts

Posted - 10 Apr 2009 :  14:16:06  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat

...They still talk about Alexander...as if he walked about yesterday. ...



Thanks for these posts, and for your link to the article about the 2005 discovery of planet-forming dust rings around brown dwarfs! Regarding your idea about observing brightened Barbarossas circling other stars:

Above, my most generous estimate (based on physics and archaeoastronomy) for Barbarossa's periodic or quasi-periodic brightening, if powered by gravitational infall, was apparent magnitude -6. A Barbarossa 220 AU from Alpha Centauri would give almost 3' separation as seen from Earth. A generous estimate of its apparent magnitude when brightened, would be -6 + 15.5 = +9.5.

The gravitational wobble would be ~2 AU (for an 0.02 solar mass Barbarossa, circling 200 AU from the alpha-Centauri binary's ~2 solar masses); this is ~2", but for a 4000 yr period, the maximum possible proper motion caused, would be only 3 milliarcsec/yr, and the maximum possible time derivative of proper motion, only 5 microarcsec/yr^2. This would tend to be obscured by the error attending measurement of the AB binary orbit. Because of their moderate mass and great distance from the primary, gravitational wobble isn't the best way to detect Barbarossas.

For the 30 yr between the major photographic plate sky surveys, let's guess 30/6000 = 0.5% of Barbarossas brightened. The nearest of these brighteners likely would be very roughly 4.4 * cuberoot(200) = 26 lt yr away; a generous apparent brightness estimate then would be +13.5; sky surveys clearly would show stars as much as 6 mags dimmer than this, i.e., corresponding to our own Barbarossa having mag 0.0 as seen from Earth.

Let's all work together on this: are there sunlike (Type G V) stars nearer than 100 lt yr (30 pc, i.e. 30 mas Hipparcos parallax) having a nova within, say, 6'? Mindful that Barbarossa appears on Red but not Blue sky surveys, one could compare the 1950s Palomar Red survey to two Red plates from the 1980s. The object sought would be on both 1980s plates but not the 1950s plate. The images available online, 15x15', are near optimum size for the nearest stars, but for efficiency could be cut down to W x W', where W = 15' / (distance in parsec). The 1950s plate is slightly less sensitive, so one would need to verify that stars as dim or slightly dimmer than the nova, reliably were detected by it.
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 2.42 seconds. Powered By: Snitz Forums 2000 Version 3.4.03