Requiem for Relativity

Here's the latest "dot theory". These three dots are Barbarossa:

A2. POSS-I (Red) plate date 1954.154, geocentric position RA 11 02 25.16 Decl -5 56 11.3

C3. SERC (Red) plate 1987.08215, RA 11 18 37.6 Decl -7 54 09.5

D. SERC-I (Optical Infrared) plate 1997.16711, RA 11 22 16.77 Decl -8 29 30.9.

These three dots are Frey:

A. POSS-I (Red) plate date 1954.154, geocentric position RA 11 03 12.4 Decl -5 58 09

C. SERC (Red) plate 1987.08215, RA 11 18 03.18 Decl -7 58 46.1

D2. SERC-I (Optical Infrared) plate 1997.16711, RA 11 22 32.9 Decl -8 26 56.

(Some of the other dots are Freya. There are some disappearing dots on the 1986 and 1995 plates which could be these bodies too.)

I assumed that A2 & D are Barbarossa, then making my most accurate correction for Earth parallax, interpolated the expected position for Barbarossa on the 1987 plate. Both C and C3 are a small distance away from that position.

Then I drew lines between C3 & C, A2 & A, D & D2. If these are Barbarossa & Frey in mutual orbit, the center of mass should be displaced at a constant rate. This is best seen by graphing all six bodies on the same sheet, each body relative to the presumed Barbarossa of the pair for its epoch. Generally there will be one mass ratio which makes the centers of mass collinear.

However, when the centers of mass became collinear, they also assumed the correct distance ratio, i.e., constant speed, to within 2% accuracy. (I refer to the residual small speed remaining after the speed from A2 to D is deducted.) This is a very precise and unlikely result. The implied period for circular orbit around the sun was 2847 yr (vs 2688 yr for the J:S resonance progression). Furthermore the mass ratio which gave this precisely constant-velocity center of mass, was 1:1. The conditioning of the graphical solution was such that a 1.2 :1 ratio either way might occur, but certainly not 1.5 :1. Alpha Centauri A & B are said to have a 1.2 :1 ratio, as do Earth & Venus.

The mutual orbit cannot be perfectly circular, because no ellipse centered on the center of mass, fit the points. Slight displacement of the ellipse center (if a noncircular orbital ellipse is tilted, the center of mass generally is not even a focus) allows an infinitude of ellipses. I chose one such that was especially easy to calculate, and found constant angular speed between A, C & D, within 10%; distance between Barbarossa & Frey, 0.7 AU; inclination 18 deg; tilt to Barbarossa's solar orbit, 25 deg; tilt to orbital plane, 30.5 deg; combined mass of Barbarossa & Frey, 0.0036 solar masses.

The trajectory of the presumed center of mass of Barbarossa & Frey, is so constant that Freya likely would have to be of much smaller mass than Frey, or much more distant from Barbarossa. Alternatively, let 1954 be t=0, 1997 be t=1. The midpoint of the interval A-C then is t=3/8 and the midpoint of C-D is t=7/8. If Freya were at conjunction (near our line of sight to the center of mass of Barbarossa & Frey) at t=5/8, then to a first-order approximation the acceleration due to Freya would be zero in the plane of the celestial sphere.

In this model, Barbarossa & Frey are always within 15 arcminutes of the more recent of my various predicted positions. So, the best I have to offer now, is to keep looking within 15' of those coordinates.

<i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Nem 10 is done and it looks a lot better with no filters and 3 minutes exposure 03:29 on Thursday 12 April 2007 (02:29:32 UTC)

This photo Number 10 in your Bradford Tenerife series in the search for Barbarossa, is a good one and was instantly recognizable vs. the SERC Red image. I wasn't able to magnify it, but at the magnification present on this messageboard, I found two objects which are not on the SERC Red image, nor in the USNO-B catalog. Their approximate coordinates and comparison magnitudes are:

11 25 31.9 -8 55 40 mag +18.1 and
11 25 38.2 -9 01 24 mag +18.4.

At this low magnification, both seem somewhat smaller and sharper than stars of the same magnitude, but this isn't obviously extreme enough to disqualify them. My present model indicates that they are too far from the predicted center of gravity of Barbarossa & Frey to be either, but either could be Freya even if my model is accurate. I would recommend another photo including these positions to check for reoccurrence with slight movement.

Near the limit of detection, the photo definitely showed a star with USNO-B catalog Red magnitudes +18.2 & 18.5, but, at least at this magnification, did not show another star with catalog Red magnitudes +17.0 & 16.9. The latter star (or object) appeared on both the SERC Red and POSS-I Red images. So, sometimes +18.2 is visible and sometimes +17.0 isn't. I encountered the same inconsistency in images by a skilled, careful amateur astronomer using a 16" telescope in the southwestern US.

The brightest comparison Red magnitude of any object presumed to be Barbarossa, Frey or Freya, on scanned sky survey plates, is +17.3. So presumably all three astronomers I know of who have looked for these bodies so far - J. Genebriera with 16" at Tacande Observatory, S. Riley with 16" at Buena Vista Observatory, and Stoat with 14" at Bradford Observatory on Tenerife - are working at a detection level which might or might not miss the bodies on any given photo.

Stoat: Thanks for posting the (rotated) blowup of Number 10 on the other thread. I found the locations of the two suspicious dots. The more southern dot is small and faint, barely visible. By comparison with Aladin, I can revise its coordinates slightly to

11 25 38.6 -9 01 21.

I easily could see the more northern dot, but it's far smaller and more intense than any stars. I think experts call this a "hot pixel". I'll look at this blowup more thoroughly for anything starlike that doesn't match, say, the SERC Red image on Aladin.

Okay Joe, I'll do the same with nem 11 and post that. It's only a day later and as I said, it has some crud that must have got onto the mirror but it's no great problem. Is a "hot pixel" some sort of noise then? If it is, then it shouldn't appear at all on the second image.

I'll post that image tomorrow as it's late here in the u.k.

I put the second image up Joe. What's your take on the kind of "weather" we might expect from a brown dwarf? Will it radiate fairly smoothly , or have periodic mad falir ups? Could it have electromagnetic storms that are braking Frey, or Freya's orbit, somwhat like Jupiter and Io?

If we have a collapsing cloud of hydrogen and chunks fission off, then they will still have flux pipes connecting them. Then the new sun reaches a stage where the pipes can't find deep enough anchor points in the new sun's surface.

A double sun system, where one cloud of gas is just too small to produce anything but a brown dwarf. Should have a tear drop shaped collapsing cloud, it fissions off some planets of its own but the rather "slushy" surface of the dwarf can retain its flux pipes. Ah [] just a thought.

Hi Joe, have you looked at the last post by cosmic surfer on this board. Looks like it's worth a read, and there's some good animations of the issue in the link he gives. metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=708&whichpage=8

This notion of a shear region at about 50 AU sounds very interesting.

(edited) Just been reading that web site. It sounds like Nemesis they are thinking about. It's thought to be at about 1000 A.U. and at 17hr 45 minutes and declination –22 degrees.

They do have some serious money up for anyone that can advance the bianry sun theory.