| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
 Posted - 21 Mar 2007 : 20:39:11
|
| The Tautenburg plates (link originally found by Stoat above)(80" Schmidt, world's biggest, near Jena) include two, #3855 & #8559, which lie on the track I've been discussing, but according to my newest estimate of the position and speed, neither plate should show Barbarossa. |
 |
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 00:57:36
|
The difference between the CMB dipole, and Barbarossa's position, might be explained by non-Lambertian emission at the 52.6 AU surface. This phenomenon is well-known for medical X-ray screens:
"The spectral distribution of the X-rays proved not to be important. ...
"The X-ray angle of incidence on the screen's surface was also found to be unimportant. ...
"...total light flux actually emitted from the screen is systematically less than that calculated according to Lambert's law, varying from 8% for very thin screens to 25% or even more for screens of medium and large surface densities."
- Giakoumakis & Miliotis, Physics of Medicine & Biology 30:21+, 1985.
The WMAP scan geometry is much less symmetrical than COBE's. A deviation of the CMB dipole of the order of Earth's orbital eccentricity could ensue.
|
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 04:28:46
|
Hi Joe, I just checked that I hadn't mixed up the images when I uploaded them to flickr.com They are in the right order, and I can't see how an automated telescope could mix up plates. Actually, setting up a computerised telescope makes it easier to calibrate. Errors could creep in when the telescope is looking close to the horizon, due to the weight of the beast but these plates should be okay. Four minutes error sounds way too much to me.
(Edited) We should have no problems if we compare plates made on the same telescope but perhaps Tom has come across the possible problems of trying to compare plates made on two telescopes.
Perhaps we could use a named star to get an idea of what the Bradford can see. Hip55890 is at
RA 11 27.277'
Dec -8 52.136'
RA proper motion -0.0472
Dec motion 0.0068
Magnitude 8.31 |
|
|
|
nemesis
80 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 12:35:53
|
| My suggestion for a name for the planet would be Niflheim, the Norse name for the dark realm of cold, ice, and mist. This would also be in keeping with the mythological naming tradition. |
|
|
|
nonneta
38 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 15:06:07
|
| Just out of curiosity, how is this thread related to the thread title, which is "Requiem for Relativity"? Maybe the current discussion should be given its own thread with a more representative title. |
|
|
|
Larry Burford
USA
1355 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 16:11:50
|
On line discussions are much like face to face discusions. The often move off on tangents that have a life of their own. You would have to go back and start from the beginning to see just how this particular one came into being.
We have a number of participants who use our resources for their own purposes. Without shame or embarassment, aparently. (Many of them are kooky, even to us.)
Some of them we cut off.
Some we don't.
Our reasons vary, but they are confidential.
===
We make an occasional attempt to get them to tie their stuff (either as support or as refutation) into our stuff. Sometimes they try.
===
As you can see, moderation is fairly loose here (but the rules are not especially objective, and are subject to change). The only thing that will always get you into trouble (right now) is shooting at a messenger. Off topic comments (our definition, not yours) are another.
Messages are always fair game.
LB |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 19:07:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
Hi Joe, I just checked that I hadn't mixed up the images when I uploaded them to flickr.com They are in the right order, and I can't see how an automated telescope could mix up plates. Actually, setting up a computerised telescope makes it easier to calibrate. Errors could creep in when the telescope is looking close to the horizon, due to the weight of the beast but these plates should be okay. Four minutes error sounds way too much to me.
(Edited) We should have no problems if we compare plates made on the same telescope but perhaps Tom has come across the possible problems of trying to compare plates made on two telescopes.
Perhaps we could use a named star to get an idea of what the Bradford can see. Hip55890 is at
RA 11 27.277'
Dec -8 52.136'
RA proper motion -0.0472
Dec motion 0.0068
Magnitude 8.31
These are good ideas. However, I had no problem correlating stars on POSSI (Palomar) and SERC (La Silla) 48" Schmidt plates, or on La Silla Red vs. Blue plates, or even Optical IR (0.75-1.00 micron) plates. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 19:23:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by nonneta
Just out of curiosity, how is this thread related to the thread title, which is "Requiem for Relativity"? Maybe the current discussion should be given its own thread with a more representative title.
Thanks for your input. The Cosmic Microwave Background often is cited as the main evidence for the Big Bang, and moreover for the orthodox version of General Relativistic cosmology. So, if the CMB dipole were proven to be almost perfectly aligned with a massive solar system body, a psychological door would be opened for questioning other facets of orthodox Relativity theory. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 19:51:24
|
A good description of the WMAP scan geometry is on the WMAP website. A good description of the COBE scan geometry is in Smoot et al, Astrophysical Journal 360:685+, p. 686.
From the COBE description, it seems that to first order in Earth's orbital eccentricity, a nearby non-Lambertian emission shell for the CMB would not affect the apparent dipole. However, the article admits that there was enough deviation from the idealized description, that sometimes part of Earth appeared over the edge of the sunshield. So, an effect on the apparent dipole might be seen due to the COBE scan geometry. It likely would be smaller, but of the same sign as, that due to the WMAP geometry.
WMAP, basically, scanned the hemisphere away from the sun. A non-Lambertian emission surface at 52.6 AU (e.g., a sum of rainbows) would give an apparent cross dipole of strength
0.5/52.6^2*(90/theta)^2*8/pi*epsilon
where epsilon is Earth's orbital eccentricity and theta is the angular radius of the "rainbow" (the rainbow is a model of extreme non-Lambertian emission).
By the method of Newton's "Optics", Book I, Part 2, Prop. 9, Problem 4 (pp. 446-447, Britannica Great Books edition) one sees that the index of refraction which gives the largest deflection (39.4deg) for light transmitted through a droplet, is sqrt(2). The light reflected in this droplet gives a rainbow radius of theta = 31.6deg.
Using this as a model or guide, one finds that Earth's orbital eccentricity causes WMAP's apparent CMB dipole to lag 3.0 degrees. The actual lag found above is 3.1 degrees. COBE's smaller lag (0.6 deg) might be due to a lesser amount of the same phenomenon. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2007 : 20:32:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by Larry Burford
On line discussions are much like face to face discusions. The often move off on tangents that have a life of their own. You would have to go back and start from the beginning to see just how this particular one came into being.
We have a number of participants who use our resources for their own purposes. Without shame or embarassment, aparently. (Many of them are kooky, even to us.)
Some of them we cut off.
Some we don't.
Our reasons vary, but they are confidential.
===
We make an occasional attempt to get them to tie their stuff (either as support or as refutation) into our stuff. Sometimes they try.
===
As you can see, moderation is fairly loose here (but the rules are not especially objective, and are subject to change). The only thing that will always get you into trouble (right now) is shooting at a messenger. Off topic comments (our definition, not yours) are another.
Messages are always fair game.
LB
I have something to add to the above incisive, valuable comments: please consider the message, not the messenger. Almost never will one find a person who is a competent heretic in exactly one's own heretical area of choice and no other. |
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2007 : 04:52:30
|
| Hi Joe, one thing that the image problem could be, is that the images put up here are simple jpg's. You can download them as FIT files from the Bradford. jpg files will only be at 72 dpi, so they won't fit onto the much larger fit files. Do yo think it could be down to that? |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2007 : 16:22:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
Hi Joe, one thing that the image problem could be, is that the images put up here are simple jpg's. You can download them as FIT files from the Bradford. jpg files will only be at 72 dpi, so they won't fit onto the much larger fit files. Do yo think it could be down to that?
When I saved the ESO versions of my Object #3 area, as JPG instead of FITS files, they were a little blurrier, but it still was easy to identify the main landmark stars. |
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2007 : 17:47:33
|
| I just downloaded one of the images as a fits file. My viewer didn't want to know, so i downloaded the other older fits file, not for colour images. One of them opened and after adjusting the intensity I got about three times as many stars. So it looks as though it's best to use the black and white image format on job requests. Should I put up the images again? Or not bother? One good thing I found, my fits viewer has a blink animator to it. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2007 : 21:01:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
I just downloaded one of the images as a fits file. My viewer didn't want to know, so i downloaded the other older fits file, not for colour images. One of them opened and after adjusting the intensity I got about three times as many stars. So it looks as though it's best to use the black and white image format on job requests. Should I put up the images again? Or not bother? One good thing I found, my fits viewer has a blink animator to it.
Please put up the new improved (B&W) images! With three times as many stars, it should be easy to confirm the region. Also, it will let others know what to expect, even though I no longer think that region is the best bet for finding Barbarossa. It's also good that you have a blink animator now. |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 23 Mar 2007 : 22:57:27
|
JL Brady determined the mass of "Planet X" (a different "Planet X" revealed by ephemeris discrepancies of Halley's, and other comets) as a multiple of Pluto's mass (Brady, Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific 84:314+, 1972, Sec. II). Brady's Fourier analysis showed, an influence with the period of Pluto, and another influence 300x bigger with a period corresponding to a circular orbit at 65 AU. When Brady wrote, Pluto was thought to have 0.10 Earth mass (Baker's "Astronomy", 9th ed., 1971). Noting that the influence also should be proportional to the inverse square of the major axis, Brady estimated, in Sec. II, that Planet X should be 1000x heavier than Pluto, i.e., 100 Earth masses according to the presumed mass of Pluto at that time.
Also, the mass should be proportional to the cosecant of the orbital inclination (which Brady eventually estimated at 120 deg, vs. 17 deg for Pluto). This would change Brady's Sec. II estimate, to 300x heavier than Pluto (keeping the same number of significant digits as Brady). The mass of Pluto has been revised drastically downward, to 0.0020 Earth masses (Astronomical Almanac, 2004, p. E88; 2007 ed. is the same). So, Brady's Sec. II estimate becomes 300*0.002 = 0.6 Earth masses, not 100.
In later sections of his article, Brady made computer integrations of gravitational effects, and found 300 Earth masses for Planet X, implying 1 Earth mass for Pluto. The resolution of this paradox, is that the perturbations of Halley's comet, though proportional to the masses of Pluto and Planet X, are not due to gravity "as we know it" (a phrase I borrow from actor DeForest Kelly). The perturbation is 500x that due to gravity, perhaps through the mediation of phenomena at the 52.6 AU barrier, to which Pluto (inside) and Brady's Planet X (outside) make comparably close approaches.
If Brady's Planet X were as heavy as Jupiter, it would have sqrt(65/5.2) = 3.5x Jupiter's angular momentum and would "wag the dog" (the phrase originally appeared in Von Arnum's "Frauelein Schmidt", 1907, was used by F. Scott Fitzgerald in 1935, & was the title of a 1997 movie) of orbital precession in the solar system (Goldreich & Ward, PASP 84:737+). At 1/500 Jupiter's mass, it has 0.007x Jupiter's angular momentum. Not only is its force on the other planets 500x less (which by itself would increase the disruption time from Goldreich & Ward's 1 million yr, to 500 million yr) but it is Planet X which precesses fastest, thereby canceling by averaging, what little disruptive effect Planet X has.
Though Brady predicted magnitude +13 to 14, Klemola & Harlan (PASP 84:736) found nothing in Brady's predicted region, down to mag +15 or, mostly, +17 or 18 (sensitivity varied). The actual 500x smaller mass of Brady's Planet X equates to 4.5 magnitude units, i.e., +17.5 to 18.5. The difference between Pluto's 30% albedo (Astronomical Almanac, 2004) and the canonical Kuiper belt albedo of 4-8%, gives another 1.4 to 2.2 mags, for +18.9 to +20.7. Thus Klemola & Harlan's observational failure also is obviated. (Brady checked that his Planet X was outside Tombaugh's search, i.e. the Lowell Proper Motion Survey, which was down only to +16 or 17 anyway.)
A 500x smaller mass for Brady's Planet X reduces the hypothetical sum of squared residuals due to its effect on the known outer planets, 250,000x. This thoroughly obviates the findings of Seidelmann et al, PASP 84:858.
According to Brady's orbit (Brady, op. cit., Sec. IV last par., & Fig. 5) Planet X now would be near ecliptic longitude 0, ecliptic latitude +52. Using its 0.6 Earth mass, which the modern estimate of Pluto's mass implies, and its "x1" = 65/52.6 = 1.24 (vs. "x2" = 191/52.6 = 3.63 for Barbarossa) Brady's Planet X moves the CMB dipole
0.6/(0.0068*333,000) * f(x1)/f(x2) radian * sin52 = 0.58 degree north,
where f(x)= -2*(1- 3*x^2)/(1-x)^2/(1+x)^2
is the Hermite one-step approximation, for x > 1 (and not too near 1), for an integral arising in my calculation of the CMB dipole caused by a massive body. (The approximation for 0 < x < 1, x not too near 1, is
f(x) = -4*x^3/(1-x)^2/(1+x)^2 .)
Together with the contribution of Neptune ( +0.0243 * 11.8 deg * sin(311-173); conveniently, Neptune was at its descending node) and Uranus ( +0.00323 * 11.8 deg * sin(329-173) ) (the contributions of Jupiter & Saturn are small), this explains 0.58 + 0.21 + 0.03 = 0.82deg of discrepancy between Barbarossa's and the CMB dipole's ecliptic latitudes (observed discrepancy: 0.7deg).
Also, a negligibly larger predicted mass for Barbarossa, results from Brady's Planet X. The rational expression f shows that the induced CMB dipole decreases as inverse distance squared, rendering interstellar effects negligible.
|
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2007 : 07:34:41
|
Oops!
|
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2007 : 07:36:59
|
[quote]Originally posted by Stoat
Here's the nem3 image, which is at RA 11 07 24 Dec -6 38 50
 |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2007 : 13:42:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
[quote]Originally posted by Stoat
Here's the nem3 image, which is at RA 11 07 24 Dec -6 38 50
This is the previous version of this coordinate shot, turned upside down. I'm not laughing: this is only the third photo in the world ever made in the search for Barbarossa, and things will go wrong. The important thing is that it's corrected. I still can't correlate it with the Millenium catalog, however. Part of the reason might be that the Millenium catalog typically shows only one or two stars per Bradford frame in this region. |
|
|
|
Stoat
United Kingdom
863 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2007 : 14:42:23
|
It doesn't matter. When we get two shots the same from the Bradford, we can animate them to look for movement.
We look at upside down pictures of the moon without any problems  |
|
|
|
Joe Keller
USA
747 Posts |
Posted - 24 Mar 2007 : 15:17:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stoat
It doesn't matter. When we get two shots the same from the Bradford, we can animate them to look for movement.
We look at upside down pictures of the moon without any problems
Good point! Carry on! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Requiem for Relativity
