Requiem for Relativity

Joe, how does this possible companion relate, if at all, to the work of Matese et al., who have proposed a companion of up to 5 Jupiter masses at about 8000 AU, or possibly a Neptune-sized body at around 2000 AU?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />And I thought i was being a bit controversial with the "planet stoat." [] Barbarossa, was a crusader, so that might raise a frown from Islam. Barbarossa was the code name of the Nazi invasion of Russsia, so I think you might be stepping on a few toes there as well.

What happens is that you would get the credit and the first suggestion as to what to call the thing but it will be decided by an international astronomy body. I think it will end up with a name from a mythology other than the Eurocentric.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Response:

I, the lone and sole predicter and discoverer of the planet and its two largest moons, and my friends, will continue calling the planet Barbarossa, and the two largest moons, Frey and Freya. Those are the names already, and will continue to be the correct names, forever. If anyone ever calls them by any other names, he's incorrect.

- Joseph C. Keller, M. D. (Harvard class of 1977)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />Joe, how does this possible companion relate, if at all, to the work of Matese et al., who have proposed a companion of up to 5 Jupiter masses at about 8000 AU, or possibly a Neptune-sized body at around 2000 AU?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for mentioning this interesting work. Of course, that is much farther and much less massive. Was there a search for those bodies?

The statement at the top of USNO-B online catalog searches, says the plates are from the last 50yr. This round figure implies they might go back 55yr, or 60yr if the time was counted from the completion of a given survey project. The assumed angular speed implied a range of 69yr for Objects #1-5, but a 10% reduction in orbital radius would reduce this to 59yr.

I've now searched, in the USNO-B catalog with my original criteria, a region 7'-8' to either side of the track, from RA 11h3m to 11h31m. I found no additional objects near enough to the track and similar enough to those already found, to be candidates.

Joe, the paper by Matese, Whitmire, and Lissauer, from 2006, was theoretical and the companion was proposed to explain Sedna-type objects, but they say the object could be present but unrecognized in the IRAS and maybe the 2MASS data. Google "wide binary" with "Sedna" and the paper should come up.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by nemesis</i>
<br />Joe, the paper by Matese, Whitmire, and Lissauer, from 2006, was theoretical and the companion was proposed to explain Sedna-type objects, but they say the object could be present but unrecognized in the IRAS and maybe the 2MASS data. Google "wide binary" with "Sedna" and the paper should come up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

from the paper:

"...[RS]Gomes et al. [CeMDA](2005) discuss two resonant mechanisms for converting objects in the scattered disk into high-perihelion (q &gt; 40 AU) scattered disk objects, but they find that they cannot produce these de-tached objects with a &gt; 260 AU. ..."

*******

This correlates with the 270 AU distance, where the circular orbital period, is that implied by the giant planet orbital resonance discrepancies discussed above.