Requiem for Relativity

Source #1 (IRAS 11102-0701 or IRAS F11102-0701) indicates that Barbarossa is now devoid of internal heat. Barbarossa is at equilibrium 15K with sunlight, or maybe somewhere between that, and the 30K temperature of interstellar "cold dust" (Enc. Britannica 1998, article "infrared source"). Frey & Freya are, to a first approximation, infrared blackbodies at 55K; or, to a second approximation, slightly warmer: Neptune's effective temperature, 59K, would allow the same energy radiance, but with a 25% albedo for infrared. Frey and Freya have internal heat like Neptune.

On one hand, Source #2 resembles (in its three longest wavelengths) the exponential tail of a Planck radiation curve for the 30K "cold dust" of the distant face-on spiral galaxy superimposed with it. On the other hand, Source #1 in its "F" ("faint source" IRAS catalog) version assessment, resembles (in its three shortest wavelengths) the Rayleigh-Jeans "left foot" of the Planck curve for 250K "warm dust" clouds "warmed by neighboring stars" such as the "red" star nominally 17" away (op. cit.; see also previous post).

The difference between the original version and "F" version assessments of Source #1, is due to infrared radiation from Frey & Freya, which apparently was somehow subtracted to obtain the "F" version. In the original assessment, Frey & Freya had provided half the power in the three longest wavelengths. With four IRAS measurements, the moons must have had four times the power of the stellar "warm dust" source, in those wavelengths (but not in the shortest wavelength). Consideration of this anomalous "fourth measurement" which happened to include the Barbarossa system, would cause, by the simplest calculation, sqr((1+1+1+25 - (1+1+1+5)^2/4)/3)/2 = 100% uncertainty of the result (vs. unreported uncertainty in the original catalog and, in the "F" catalog, 29-31% uncertainty at the each of the three longest wavelengths).

The part due to Frey & Freya (three longest wavelengths) is fairly flat, and it is symmetrical. Such symmetry would be obtained at a Planck temperature of 55K (my estimate by two guesses and then one first-order interpolation). If Barbarossa itself were a blackbody at this effective temperature, it would emit 30x too much radiation (assuming all of the 4 IRAS measurements detected it). Really, it is Frey and Freya (1/8 the surface area) which emit, because Barbarossa is cold. Also, they were only detected in one of the four measurements; the other three measurements of them, not only were irrelevant, but were ignored because they didn't happen to be near another, unmoving, infrared source at those times. Thus 1/8 * 1/4 = 1/32.

Neptune's 30% optical albedo suggests, perhaps, a 25% infrared albedo (not 0% as for a blackbody) for Frey & Freya. To keep the same power output would require adjustment of the temperature upwards to 59K, which happens to be the effective Planck temperature of Neptune.

Joe, how do you explain that Barbarossa, being larger, has no internal heat, while its moons Frey and Freya do?

<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 do you explain that Barbarossa, being larger, has no internal heat, while its moons Frey and Freya do?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Whatever causes Neptune to have much more internal heat than Uranus, might cause Frey & Freya to have much more internal heat than Barbarossa. Furthermore Barbarossa and its moons might differ much more in composition, than do Neptune & Uranus. Elsewhere on this messageboard, I've speculated that Uranus' lack of internal heat might be due to its rotation axis lying near the solar system's orbital plane.

I was talking with my father about this last night. He commented that the orbital plane of Barbarossa's moons, by analogy with Jupiter, Saturn & Uranus, might reveal Barbarossa's rotational axis.

The long axis of my "PM ellipse" is perpendicular to Barbarossa's sky path. This hints that Barbarossa's aliasing moons' orbits are perpendicular to Barbarossa's orbit.

I found another VizieR digitized plate, which does *not* show Barbarossa nor its moon, near Object #3 (see above). I first saw Barbarossa and its moon on this VizieR plate:

SERC.ER.DSS2.713 (label in upper left corner, superimposed on the plate itself)

late the night of March 4, and announced the information (here on Dr. Van Flandern's www.metaresearch.org messageboard, first) March 5. (Today is March 7, now approx 8:39 PM CST.) Barbarossa is the streak SW of the catalog position of Object #3 (USNO-B 0820-0274026); its moon is to the W.

Within the last hour I have obtained another Aladin plate which shows the same main stars, including some of apparent faintness similar to Barbarossa and its moon, but which shows neither Barbarossa nor its moon. That is by far the biggest discrepancy between the two plates. I've already shown the plates side by side, to two undergraduates here at Iowa State Univ. in the downstairs multimedia room (a Black man studying economics sitting to my right and his White friend who had stopped by to chat). It is this VizieR plate:

DSS2.O.POSSI (similar upper left label superimposed on plate)

I obtained the first plate again as I always have, by accessing Aladin directly through VizieR (Strasbourg), entering the exact USNO-B coordinates of Object #3, using the default "0" radius search, and selecting the top choice, "ER (Optical R)". I obtained the second plate by searching USNO-B1.0 for the exact coordinates of Object #3, with a 10" radius, then clicking the instruction in the lower left corner, telling the server to find an Aladin plate of my object.

Regarding Object #3, there are three interesting nearby objects which seem to be cataloged:

F1. USNO-B 0820-0274021 (catalog mags R19.3, I17.8, B invalid).

F2. USNO-B 0820-0274037 (catalog mags R17.8-19.0, I18.2)

F3. USNO-B 0820-0274036 (catalog mags R19.3, I18.7, B invalid)

The "Optical R" plate on which Barbarossa appears, shows these with F2 somewhat dimmer than Barbarossa. F3 is dimmer yet. F3 is similar in brightness, to the above "moon" of Barbarossa which I henceforth call F1.

On the Aladin "Optical B" plate option, F1-3 all are visible though F1, at least, has moved, to about 0.08s (1") W. Also, F1 is faint. Barbarossa, formerly brighter than any of F1-3, is absent from this plate.

On "Optical I", Barbarossa is gone. F2 & F3 are definite though faint. F1 is stronger than it is on "Optical R".

On "IRJ", all are gone except F1, which is as strong as ever. "IRH" & "IRK" also show only F1, which is relatively bright on these and rivals nearby brighter stars.

Only Barbarossa makes a streak. Only Barbarossa is limited to only one of the seven plates I've viewed tonight (F1-F3 appear on at least the Optical R, Optical B, and Optical I plates).

I also viewed the IRAS 12, 25, 60 & 100 micron plates. On these, nothing immediately relevant was obvious.

The longest of these IR wavebands, "IRK", corresponds to 1250-1500K. Since F1 appears on six of the seven plates viewed, it's probably outside our solar system, perhaps a star with much "warm dust".

Barbarossa, found near the coordinates of Object #3 (USNO-B 0820-0274026) must be either an asteroid, a Kuiper belt object, or something stranger within our solar system (no nebula or external galaxy would be relatively strong in Red yet very weak in Blue and in optical and all other IR). Its short track argues for c. 330 AU distance, assuming an all-night exposure of a sky patch near opposition.

The elliptical orbits which the "PM ellipse" suggests for Barbarossa's true moons, would bias sightings toward the parts of their orbits where they spend more time and make shorter photographic trails. In any case, the PM ellipse suggests that Frey's and Freya's orbital speeds around Barbarossa are faster than Barbarossa's orbital speed around the sun. This would make Frey & Freya difficult to detect on time exposures.