| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Mar 2007 : 15:46:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
With the Bradford, just sign in and there's a "your menu " button left of screen. Click that and there is a number of buttons to submit job requests.
It tells me I'm not authorized to submit, that I have the wrong kind of status. [Addendum] I see that one must "verify" one's account. I'm waiting for the verification code to come: apparently this can take days. Also I notice (March 19) from searching the "jobs" list for 5400 sec jobs, that Stoat's March 15 job is still "awaiting scheduling". |
 |
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 14 Mar 2007 : 15:49:59
|
"> ...if you have the image as a FITS file, then I would expect it
>to have the observing date in the header.
>
>Cheers,
>
> - Arnold Rots"
I asked about 20 relevant people for help getting the date of the plate. Only two tried to help. Of the two suggestions, the above was the only one that worked.
*********
Dear Dr. Rots,
Your suggestion worked. Here's how to get the date of an archive.eso plate:
1. Google "FITSview", then download the freeware of that name. It was fast & easy.
2. Open another window for archive.eso, then when you search for the image from ESO, choose the (default) FITS option.
3. Save the image FITS file to your desktop.
4. Go to the FITSview page which should be still open on your browser, click "File" then "Open". When you see the image, then click "File" then "Image info". Then you'll see the header.
Thanks again. You might want to save these instructions.
Sincerely,
Joe Keller
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 14 Mar 2007 : 17:22:35
|
The date of the (DSS-2 Red) plate showing Barbarossa, is January 31, 1987: the last day of the month of Janus. If IRAS Source #1 is accepted also, this implies, for a circular orbit, a distance of roughly 135 A.U. and a prograde orbital period of 1700 yr. (Non-negligible corrections for Earth parallax occur for both the IRAS and the DSS-2 observations.)
In this scenario, Barbarossa would need a diameter of 10,000-20,000 mi. (and its moons half that)(depending on albedo) to be consistent with the +18.6 Red magnitude which both this author (by comparison with the nearby cataloged stars on the plate) and the USNO determined. The streak should be about 1" long considering the direction of Earth's orbital motion in January, vs. 3" observed.
The planet remains, of course, spherical, gravitationally bound, and unable (Poincare instability) to rotate far during the 1hr exposure. That the midpoint of the best-fitting streak does not overlie the darkest pixel, implies a moon as before, which also accounts for most of the streak length. The present position would be roughly
RA 11h 36m 00s Decl -10deg 10'
|
|
|
|
nemesis
80 Posts |
Posted - 14 Mar 2007 : 21:46:33
|
| Joe, I wonder if there are any telescopes in private hands with enough power to image Barbarossa. The problem with the big observatories, including USNO, is that it's so hard to get time, even for those in the "club", so to speak. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2007 : 13:09:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by nemesis
Joe, I wonder if there are any telescopes in private hands with enough power to image Barbarossa. The problem with the big observatories, including USNO, is that it's so hard to get time, even for those in the "club", so to speak.
International competition helps (e.g., Galle, who listened to Leverrier, trumped Airy, who didn't listen to Adams, re Neptune) but "One World" is lessening that. There's groupthink, that united, they can define reality, somewhat as Canute sarcastically said, but unlike Canute, they really believe the tide doesn't come in if they say it doesn't (they have $100 billion in tax dollars to back them up). Most "wait for someone [above them in the pecking order] to tell them what to think". I'll send an email to the Lowell Observatory today, but private observatories, like private colleges and foundations, also get sucked into the corrupting bureaucratization process which government funding brings.
In defense of the astronomy establishment, they do have a love-hate relationship with their fans ("can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em") rather like actors. Without fans they'd get no money, so they court the public in the newspapers & educational TV, but then they have to hide from all the people who want to tell them the moon is made of green cheese.
Tombaugh searched the entire ecliptic down to +17 with a 13" telescope and 1930 photographic technology. It was at 7200 ft. in N. Arizona before light pollution, smog, and "wide persistent contrails" which are usually a gross problem for me because I live under a jet route through central Iowa.
Two experienced amateur astronomers (one local and the other very active) told me their 24" could do it, but both declined to look; neither offered to let me use their equipment. Iowa State Univ. has a 24" but their observatory chief also declined to look.
So far, the best observing program we have is Stoat's, with the 14" on Tenerife at 7800 ft; this gives 14x14' photos with, I gather from the online log, up to 3 minute (180000 ms) exposures. Conveniently, the Aladin images are cut to about this size. The 48" Schmidt at La Silla, also at 7800 ft, used 1hr exposure to photograph Barbarossa, but those plates were 6.5x6.5deg:
60*(48/14*14/390)^2= 0.9 minute would give the equivalent exposure for Bradford at Tenerife
As many of us as possible should follow Stoat, asking him for specific directions if necessary, and order views along the Barbarossa track with 0.9 minute exposures, asking Bradford to post it publicly. This exposure (54000 ms) will be the clue that it's "one of ours" for anyone scanning the online Bradford jobs. Then compare the images to Aladin's (their "Optical Red" is from La Silla), by opening two windows on your browser. If anyone here knows that new technology since 1987, requires a much different exposure, please post the information into this thread.
|
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2007 : 14:51:13
|
| Okay, I've put a job up on the Bradford for 11 9 00, -6 51 00. at 54000 ms. I'll post when they get it done, and we can then put the same job in again and compare them by blinking the two, or more, plates. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2007 : 16:00:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
Okay, I've put a job up on the Bradford for 11 9 00, -6 51 00. at 54000 ms. I'll post when they get it done, and we can then put the same job in again and compare them by blinking the two, or more, plates.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
nemesis
80 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2007 : 16:32:04
|
"Two experienced amateur astronomers (one local and the other very active) told me their 24" could do it, but both declined to look; neither offered to let me use their equipment. Iowa State Univ. has a 24" but their observatory chief also declined to look."
This seems very strange. Do you suppose a suggestion that they could be co-discoverers would motivate them? This could be one of the greatest astronomical discoveries in decades.
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2007 : 17:43:48
|
A professional observational astronomer told me Saturday, by phone, that the USNO-B magnitudes at the faint end, aren't accurate enough to produce significant clustering like the "Freya" and "Frey" "dim Red" magnitudes. He offered no numbers.
If the standard deviation of the magnitude measurements is 0.1, clustering such as "Freya" (five of the dimmer Object #1-8 mags were in the interval [20.60,20.73]) is possible. If the s.d. is 0.2, it's unlikely. Red dwarfs are variables: this masks the true error in this range; it can't be determined simply from R1 vs. R2 in a sample.
Pixel analysis (above) suggests moon(s), but my original reason for suspecting moons, was the clustering of the dimmer magnitudes. Alternatively, the clustering might be an artifact of the computer's effort to find images of Barbarossa on a Proper Motion path on all seven other plates.
After generously estimating (above) 40 plates of each region, I learned the typical 6.5x6.5deg size of the (almost 8000) plates scanned by the USNO. This reduces the estimate (the ecliptic might be slightly favored) to exactly 8: too few to produce the theorized aliasing more than once, if that. However, Barbarossa's great circle sky track and its associated statistical significances, remains.
Barring any longitudinally interlaced sky survey program, Barbarossa will appear on exactly 8 plates. It does. These plates give Objects #1-8.
Viewing the Aladin plates, I saw that the dimmest reliable stars had USNO-B Red mags of about +19.5. Maybe all mags dimmer than +19.5, arise from averaging, something definite < +19.5, with vague things > +19.5. For PMs > 80 or < -80, R1-R2 pairs both > +19.5 (N=782 in a 1 deg redius), are no more common than pairs with one > & one < (N=779). Not a single object in a 1 deg radius had R1,R2 > 20.90. Some of the stars I found with Red mags < 18.99 & > 19.50, would be variable red dwarfs, especially nearer +19.50, but most are presumably instances where the computer averaged a star, with dim blobs, of practically zero flux and almost infinite magnitude. According to the explanatory 2003 Astronomical Journal article, only location, not magnitude, was a criterion for identification.
An +18.75 star averaged with one dim blob would give +19.5. The maximal six dim blobs (one straightforward identification, matched, for the requisite second ID, to the other seven plates on which the real star is picked once and dim blobs six times) would give +20.9: this is where the almost uniform distribution of "dim Red" mags ended.
When the computer tried to analyze Barbarossa, the only way to get a second Red mag, was to associate the Barbarossa found on one plate, with at least seven dim blobs on the other plates. Trying to find Proper Motion, the computer found seven (or more) dim blobs on the other seven plates, making some semblance of a Proper Motion path. The "PM" so determined, would resemble the chi-square distribution with at least 7 degrees of freedom: its peak is sharp enough to put these pseudo-"PMs" on a rough circle. That Barbarossa is a streak (perhaps 1.5" due to Earth's motion and another 3" due to Frey & Freya) somehow distorts that circle into the "PM ellipse" discussed above.
Let Barbarossa, together with its non-resolved separate moons orbiting at, perhaps, 200,000 mi, have magnitude +17.41, like Object #1. Arithmetically averaged (i.e., by flux) with one dim blob, this becomes +18.16. Object #2 has +18.17 and Object #4 +18.03. Averaged with two dim blobs, Barbarossa becomes +18.61. Object #5 has 18.59, Object #7 +18.54 & Object #3 +18.57. Averaged with three dim blobs becomes +18.91. Object #6 has +18.84 & Object #8 +18.80.
The star nearest Barbarossa on the DSS-2 plate, "F1" above, is, by the above pixel analysis, about two magnitudes dimmer than Barbarossa, not one magnitude. So, the USNO-B Red mags of F1 & the somewhat brighter or similar F2&3, are consistent with +17.4 mag, not with the USNO-B catalog's +18.57, nor even with the average +18.1 for Barbarossa. This underestimation by the USNO-B catalog, of Barbarossa's magnitude on Object #3's plate, supports the foregoing theory.
The dimmer "moon" magnitudes arise from averaging the magnitudes of the seven relatively faint, non-Barbarossa objects along Barbarossa's pseudo-PM path. If two of these are real stars of magnitude +19.3, and the other five are "dim blobs" with practically zero flux, then the "moon" magnitude is +20.66, as for the five "Freyas" ([20.60,20.73]). If three of seven are real stars, then the magnitude is +20.22 (two "Freys": [20.22,20.26]). If five of seven are real, the mag is +19.665 (Object #8: 19.65); Object #8 (like Object #4) overlies a galaxy, which facilitates finding more real stars. The Freya sightings are associated with slightly but significantly (Student's t) less PM than are the Frey sightings, because paths with more real stars tend to be the longer ones.
The precision of the statistical findings is due to the USNO computer's effort to force Barbarossa into a "one-size-fits-all" program designed for stars. The eight Objects would span, typically, 7/8*50=44 yr; 15m in 44yr at 26.5deg slope gives, for a circular orbit, period 3780yr (maybe IRAS Source #1 isn't Barbarossa). More stringently, 7m in 16yr from Object #4 (1987) to Object #8 (2003?), gives an upper bound of 2950yr.
Aladin shows me only three, of the eight plates which the USNO surely used. For Object #3, one of these three plates is the plate which shows Barbarossa. Barbarossa must be on two more of the Aladin plates: the only two which I didn't check carefully were those which overlay galaxies (Objects #6 & #8). The dates on the ESO DSS-1 FITS headers, for these locations, might be the dates of the Aladin "Optical Blue" plates, which are labeled DSS1. I'll check these to find the date of either Object #6 or Object #8.
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 15 Mar 2007 : 19:53:37
|
"Frey sightings" occur, on average, at smaller RA than "Freya sightings". Both Frey and Freya sightings increase in magnitude (i.e., they dim) with increasing RA; for Freya sightings, this is statistically significant (see above). This could be because toward the galactic plane (smaller RA), the real stars found by the computer program seeking a PM path, are commoner and brighter.
According to the "FITS" headers, all the DSS1 plates for the eight Objects were made in March or, oftener, May, in 1983 or 1984. With parallax correction, the appearance of Barbarossa as Object #2 or Object #7 on the DSS-1 plate would conform to a circular 2000 yr prograde period. Because this plate (same plate for both objects) was made in May, there will be practically no Earth motion streak. There are suspicious pixels at the location of Object #7 (see below).
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2007 : 21:35:58
|
The following is an edited transcript of the workshop held in the Physics and Astronomy Building at The University of Western Ontario on Monday, November 25, 2002, from 1:00 to 5:00 pm.
É
IM My name is Ian McDiarmid. ÉI was more or less pushed into [space research] by Don Rose, who was doing cosmic ray research at NRC. Don arrived there in 1948 and I joined him as a PDF in 1954. Walter Heikkila at DRTE knew Don was interested in cosmic rays, and he was planning a couple of Aerobee rockets to be flown from Fort Churchill. In 1958 he came and talked to Don and myself and he offered us some space in the nosecones, to do some cosmic ray work. Don was really keen, because he was interested in rockets and of course he was interested in cosmic rays, he'd like to measure them above the atmosphere. I was doing high-energy particle physics at the timeÉ
É
GS He worked in photogrammetry, and he found these streaks in photographic plates taken from aircraft.
IM Really? I'd never heard that. É
É
[Ian McDiarmid] And they probably weren't streaks from cosmic rays at all, they were probably something else [laughter]. Because it would be very hard to get cosmic ray streaks in ordinary photographic plates at that altitude. É
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 16 Mar 2007 : 22:03:20
|
Roland, Iowa March 16, 2007
Open letter to the Director of the Lowell Observatory
Dear Sir:
Like Prof. Lowell, I studied Mathematics at Harvard College (B. A., cumlaude, Mathematics, 1977). The essential details of my recent work on Prof. Lowell's Planet X are posted, to Dr. Tom Van Flandern's "www.metaresearch.org" messageboard, under the name, "Joe Keller", in the thread "Requiem for Relativity". (I use Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard as an alternative to "ArXiv.org".)
Planet X, which I have named Barbarossa, appears at
RA 11h 18m 03.2s Decl -7deg 58' 46" on the La Silla sky survey Red plate SERC.ER.DSS2.713 dated January 31, 1987. Possibly there is a second appearance of Barbarossa at
RA 11h 14m 36.0s -7deg 32' 17.5" on the Blue plate SERC.J.DSS1.713 dated May 8, 1983.
Assuming a circular orbit and making first order approximations to correct for Earth parallax, Barbarossa has period 2640 yr. and is 191 AU from the sun. Accordingly, the resonances of the orbital periods of the outer planets have discrepancies which advance prograde with periods
Jupiter:Saturn 5:2 2780 yr
Saturn:Neptune 6:1 2180 yr
Jupiter:Uranus 7:1 -5970 = -2985 * 2 yr (retrograde)
Uranus:Neptune 2:1 4380 = 2190 * 2 yr
Saturn:Uranus 3:1 1190 = 2380 / 2 yr.
I discovered Barbarossa on February 15, 2007 as a sequence of statistical artifacts in the USNO-B1.0 catalog. I informed the U. S. Naval Observatory on February 21.
I first saw the La Silla Red image of Barbarossa on March 4, and realized on March 5 that it is Barbarossa. By comparison with the four nearest cataloged stars, Barbarossa's Red magnitude is about +17.3. A 6% Red albedo would imply 46,000 mi diameter. Barbarossa might be either a giant planet or a cold brown dwarf.
I realized yesterday, March 15, that the above La Silla Blue image is Barbarossa, which is dim in Blue. The pattern seen on this Univ. of Strasbourg "Aladin" image depends on one's monitor setting. At its best, it shows Barbarossa as a lean-to adjoining a nearby star with a separate USNO-B catalog number. It shows a moon of Barbarossa's (I've named the largest & next-largest moons, Frey & Freya) as a disjoint dark pixel 3" toward azimuth 245. From my drawing of the best image obtained (Prof. Lowell drew lines on Mars; I draw pixel boxes), I estimate this moon to be 1.7 magnitudes dimmer than Barbarossa.
The Red La Silla image shows no disjoint moon, nor any star near enough to confuse. Thorough computer search found the best fit for three points of light, was to have a moon 1.2 magnitudes dimmer than Barbarossa, 2.5" away at azimuth 275; and another moon 1.6 magnitudes dimmer 2" away at azimuth 75. Thus the Barbarossa system consistently appears parallel to the ecliptic. Furthermore the best fit for one point of light, lay outside the darkest pixel box, indicating either multiple sources or quickly varying magnitude. As a gravitationally bound body subject to Poincare instability, Barbarossa hardly can rotate appreciably during these 1 hr exposures.
In 2002 at a Physics and Astronomy conference, cosmic ray expert Ian McDiarmid disparaged the statement that cosmic rays would be readily detected by ordinary photographic materials onboard airplanes [let alone at 7800 ft at La Silla]. A Kuiper Belt Object would leave a streak of this length, but even then, the magnitude would suggest another Pluto or Sedna.
By great-circle extrapolation, with a rough correction for Earth parallax, Barbarossa's March 10, 2007 position is
RA 11h 27m 10s Decl -9deg 18' 58".
Alternatively, my statistically-derived greatest-likelihood great circle, estimates the Declination at this RA as
Decl -9deg 05' 46" (for RA 11h 27m 10s)
The greatest-likelihood great circle goes through this point with slope -7.35 arcminutes Decl per minute of RA.
Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2007 : 17:56:44
|
Barbarossa and "the Triad"
Obtaining more recent estimates of the orbital periods of Jupiter and Saturn, I found that the discrepancy in the 5:2 resonance, progresses one cycle in 2696 yr. This is practically equal to the approximate 2643 yr period calculated above for Barbarossa, from its sightings as Object #7 & Object #3, assuming a circular orbit. Barbarossa shepherds one point of the Triad (equilateral triangle) formed by the three recurring conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn around the ecliptic.
On April 17.5, 1981, such a conjunction occurred at 187.15deg heliocentric ecliptic longitude. (If the alternate criterion, closest three-dimensional approach, is used, this becomes 186.65.) By extrapolating the Barbarossa positions associated with Object #7 and Object #3, I found that Barbarossa was at heliocentric ecliptic longitude 172.5 then.
The difference, 187.15-172.5=14.65deg (14.15deg by the alternate criterion), is explained by the orbital eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn. Roughly, Jupiter is 180deg from perihelion & Saturn 90deg from it. A somewhat more precise first-order calculation shows Saturn a net 8.0deg ahead of Jupiter, when a "mean Saturn" and "mean Jupiter" reach heliocentric ecliptic longitude 172.5. Jupiter has extra catching-up to do.
On the average, with 5:2 resonance, this would occur over 5/3 of the catch-up angle, but Jupiter also is about 9% slow here, Saturn 1% fast, and Jupiter's average speed really is 0.7% too low for 5:2 resonance anyway. So, Jupiter needs 14.3deg to catch up.
Averaging Jupiter & Saturn (their ascending nodes and orbital inclinations are similar), gives 1.9deg inclination to the ecliptic, with ascending node at 107deg ecliptic longitude. Therefore Jupiter's & Saturn's tracks are nearly parallel to the ecliptic here. Barbarossa's projection onto this Jupiter-Saturn average ecliptic, would change the above 14.65, to 14.85. (The difference between true Jupiter-Saturn conjunction, and mere equality of ecliptic longitude, is negligible in either ecliptic system.)
So, Barbarossa's position, extrapolated from its sightings as Object #7 and Object #3, is only 0.55 deg (or 0.05deg by the alternate criterion) west of a mean shepherd position for the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance. Because there are three such positions, p=0.55*2/(360/3)=0.009 (p=0.0009 for the alternate criterion). More precise calculations might enhance this agreement.
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2007 : 19:11:37
|
| According to Jewitt et al, "...Varuna", Nature, a canonical albedo for Kuiper Belt Objects is 0.04 [also the albedo of small comet nuclei, and the darkest albedo known for solar system bodies - JK]. This albedo would give Barbarossa a diameter of 57,000 mi. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2007 : 22:19:28
|
According to Hainaut et al, Astronomy & Astrophysics 389:641+ (graph), Mars has Blue-Red magnitude = 2.2; Varuna is typical of the reddish type of Kuiper Belt Object, with B-R = 1.6. The only one of the Object #1-#8 catalog magnitudes of Barbarossa, which equals its photographic Red magnitude on the SERC Red plate for Object #3 (+17.3 by comparison with neighboring stars), is the catalog magnitude of Object #1, +17.4. The catalog Blue magnitude of Object #1 is +19.8, for B-R = 2.4.
On the SERC Blue plate for Object #7, two catalog numbers (USNO-B 0824-0279078 & USNO-B 0824-0279077) are given, seemingly for Barbarossa and for a star 2" away, resp. The two objects barely can be separated by looking at pixels. With catalog Red magnitude +17.8 and Blue +19.6, the star, USNO-B ...-77, resembles the "true" Barbarossa's magnitude. Barbarossa, USNO-B ...-78, resembles the typical catalog Barbarossa magnitudes for Objects #1-8. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2007 : 00:30:38
|
Barbarossa & Nemesis: wheels within wheels?
Above, I show how to calculate that the presumed sightings of Barbarossa follow the mean position of one of the three resonance points of Jupiter & Saturn. According to what seem to be the most accurate available periods for Jupiter and Saturn (11.6821 & 29.458 yr, resp.), this resonance point recurs after 91.0092 ( = 2*45 + 1 + 0.0092) revolutions of Saturn (2680.95 yr)(p=0.009).
Maybe just as Barbarossa shepherds the third resonance of Jupiter & Saturn, Nemesis shepherds the 45th resonance of Barbarossa with that third resonance. In this Pythagorean astronomy, the period of Nemesis would be 2680.95/0.0092 = 290,000 yr. If more accurate periods were known for Jupiter & Saturn, this might become the 26 million yr speculated for Nemesis. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2007 : 00:54:14
|
Today I redid the above calculations resulting from my theory that the CMB is due to gravity within the solar system. My calculation is exact to first order in the mass of the planet considered, as a fraction of the solar mass. Because none of the orbital radii considered are close to the 52.6 AU barrier, the integrand encountered does not become large or infinite (though this would be only a removable singularity in the integral). Hermite's 7,16,7 rule here is accurate; Simpson's 1,4,1 rule would have been 30% low, for a one-step application.
This more accurate calculation is qualitatively similar to my earlier one. In the effective 11.2 yr between the COBE 4-yr & WMAP 3-yr observations, the CMB dipole retrogressed 0.27(+/-0.22)deg along the heliocentric ecliptic. Without the theoretical effects of N,U,S&J, this would have been 0.94deg retrogression. On the other hand, the prograde motion of Barbarossa would cause 1.53deg progression of the dipole.
Theoretically the dipole should have become a few microK weaker (mainly due to Neptune's approaching opposition to Barbarossa) instead of a few microK stronger between the WMAP 1- & 3-yr results, but this was within error bars. The predicted mass of Barbarossa from this model is 0.0068 solar mass. Barbarossa is 0.7deg S of the CMB dipole in heliocentric ecliptic latitude; 1/3 of this discrepancy is explained by Neptune (the other planets have negligible effect).
For the WMAP 3-yr result, Barbarossa led the CMB dipole by 3.1deg after removing the effect of J,S,U&N. The COBE 4-yr CMB dipole lagged Barbarossa only 3.1 - 2.5 = 0.6 (+/-) 0.2 deg. WMAP tended to make observations nearer quadrature to the sun; COBE nearer opposition. Also, 1/52.6 radian = 1 degree. This suggests that the true CMB dipole is 0.5(+/-)0.1 deg N of Barbarossa and < 0.6 (+/-)0.2 deg W of Barbarossa.
|
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2007 : 16:58:58
|
I'm now estimating 11h 27m 9.6s, -9deg 12' 36" (this is the average of two differently derived estimates 7' above and below this, which I gave to Lowell Observatory) for March 10. To correct for the date, subtract 1.1s RA and add 7.5" Decl (i.e., less negative, toward equator) per day.
The correction is pretty accurate until April 10. A 14' field of view is barely big enough to include my two about equally likely estimates, so there's a 50% chance of being in the field, 25% chance of being above & 25% chance of below.
|
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2007 : 07:45:55
|
Okay, I've put tha job onto the Bradford as nem4, dumped the last nem4 job. I hate to harp on about it but these two people in your state with telescopes, that won't look for this object. Try them again but this time say that to your friends it will have the name you gave it but to the world it will be what the international astronomy body decide what it's to be called.
In my local pub nobody cares much about the speed of gravity but they did care, very much, about the name of a possible brown dwarf in the neighbourhood. They asked if it was legal for the discoverer to name the thing. I said, I didn't believe it was. Perhaps the people with telescopes are wary of the name you've given the object. Honestly, the press conference would end up in an uproar, and that would steal their kudos.
If an unprincipled mercenary dog, such as myself  discovered it, I'd call it the planet "Coca Cola." That way I'd be sure of being passed a huge cheque under the table, by a company that shan't be named. Of course I wouldn't do that  No, I'd e - mail every large multinational, to get them to bid  The planet "Nike" sounds good, I could claim it as being from mythology Then there was a little known Greek god called "Kentucky fried chicken."    |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2007 : 18:13:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
Bradford robotic telescope images, the first is at 11 07 24, -6 38 50
next at 11 06 02. -6 28 27
Go to the Bradford web site and look at the latest jobs, these are nem2 and nem3. Perhaps if we decide on an exposure we can put the same job up a few times and then do a blink comparison in photoshop.
I'm unable to match these photos with the Aladin plates centered at the same coordinates, even if I switch the labels or move the Aladin coords a few arcmin. Nor is there a very good match with the Millenium Star Atlas.
If the labels were switched, the bright star at the bottom edge of the lower photo, corresponds to the 8th magnitude star near the SE corner of the degree grid on p. 801 of the Millenium Star Atlas. The bright star toward the bottom right of the top photo, corresponds to the 9th mag star near the center of the same degree grid in the atlas. The centers of these photos then would have to be displaced one to four arcminutes in each direction.
The Hipparcos cataloged stars were observed ~100x, between mid-1989 & mid-1993. From the Millenium catalog census, apparently inclusion of 11th mag stars was only partial, and a few 12th mag were included. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Requiem for Relativity
