Requiem for Relativity

Whether or not Frey is at the L1 point of a more distant, unseen, moon, Freya, the Paul Wesson p = J/L^2, is larger for Barbarossa/Frey/(Freya), than for Earth/Luna, but smaller than for Pluto/Charon. These double planets (Earth/Luna isn't quite a double planet; the center of mass is within the Earth) in our solar system have roughly 6-250x larger p, than rapidly rotating individual planets (like Earth), or the solar system (if Barbarossa is included) itself.

Intergalactic light redshifts as if retarded by a deceleration equal in magnitude to the anomalous Pioneer acceleration. Suppose that away from the sun (maybe, beyond 52.6 AU) the anomalous Pioneer acceleration persists but is opposite the motion, rather than heliocentric. Such a friction-like deceleration would confine particles at Frey's position (if Frey is merely a cloud of particles at the L1 of a farther moon, Freya). A rough quadratic estimate, for the acceleration near L1, in the rotating frame, shows that the confined cloud would subtend ~1" as seen from Earth.

Hi,
Mi name is Mauro Lacy, I'm a professional computer programmer.

I've checked(using Aladin) the coordinates posted by Joe Keller, and can confirm that the object he refers as Barbarossa is absent from sky catalogs. I've checked many sky catalogs, as Aladin lets you easily consult a lot of them at the same time. I've checked mainly Optical and Infrared catalogs, but also Radio, X-ray and Gamma ray ones, without finding anything.
That leaves us with the possibility that the offending object is an artifact. I've sent an email to the director of University of Córdoba Observatory, here in Argentina, to see if they can take a plate of that region, to definitely rule out artifacts, maybe get a better picture, a better estimate of magnitude, and maybe even detect movement.
I'll post my findings, and any news on this subject here.

Mauro

Reading back a few posts I got thinking about Larry's post on force. Just for fun I thought I'd see what we would get from an orbital system which had a small m of the electrons e.m. mass and its gravitational e.m. equivalent.

Now as I'm thinking along the lines of an electron as a toroid, I can imagine that we are dealing with a spiralling e.m. entity which has acceleration.

So we will have e = mc^2 and a further energy equation e = mb^2 for b being the speed of gravity. Both of these equations are binomial expansions of the lorentzian and imply a one to one correspondence. That's an assumption but I think a valid one.

e = mb^2 for the gravitational energy.
1.2355897798E 20J = 9.1093897E-31 * 1.16464217444E 25^2
Divide that through by the speed of light squared to get an equivalent e.m mass.
1.37477903776E 03 kgs
F = GMm / r^2
Take r to be the Compton wavelength, 2.42631060001E-12 metres
1.41946220144E-14 Newtons = 6.67259E-11 * 1.37477903776E 03 * / 2.42631060001E-12^2

F = ma, so an acceleration of the electron mass of 1.55824072544E 16 metres per second squared
and for M an acceleration of 1.03250206939E-17 metres per second squared.

It wobbles about, it will be uncertain in e.m space and even more so in gravitational space. The two spaces are in one to one correspondence, the gravitational energy of the electron is hidden inside of the Shwartzchild radius but that radius can be anywhere within the gravitational wavelength of the particle.

Granted, that sounds pretty horrible but we can consider gravitational space to be larger, or informationally smaller than e.m. space. The smaller the mass, the larger the gravitational wavelength. For a photon, which I think has a rest mass of about 1E-64 kgs the Shwartzchild radius can be anywhere within a gravitational radius of light years. Hence, it seems not to have any rest mass at all but it has momentum, due to it having its own space.

Now this is where I think the Reimann conjecture comes into play. We have quantised e.m matter. I also think that gravity takes an exponential form. What if, real number infinities and natural number infinities have one to one correspondence points, which are legislated by prime numbers? My hunch is that non locality informs a particle of its unique locality.

"Talking points" for recruiting amateur, professional, academic or government astrophotographers:

One to two years ago, I studied the Aladin plates, using computers in libraries that had Java software. I found many objects, but it was objects on the 1986 and 1954 Red sky survey plates, together with Joan Genebriera's March 2007 photo of Barbarossa (from Tenerife) and Steve Riley's April 2007 photo of Frey (from southern California) that fit a circular orbit to within a very few arcsec, if the mass ratio Barbarossa::Frey is properly chosen. I found objects on most other relevant plates, that did not fit the orbit so well, but maybe the explanation is that I had picked the wrong "moon" as "Frey". The U. of Iowa photo fits the orbit (about 4" off) too.

The "clincher" is that the four pairs (1954 & 1986 sky surveys, spring 2007 and Dec. 2008 photos) fit a binary orbit perfectly (to 1") with only "one adjustable parameter" (the 5th ellipse point) to fit "two equations" (Kepler's 2nd law between 1st & 2nd and between 2nd & 3rd sectors). (All this information was posted to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard as I discovered it.) Also, I posted much on the messageboard, refuting the usual objections to the existence of such a planet, and connecting the planet to various unexplained solar system relationships.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Maurol</i>
<br />...the object he refers as Barbarossa is absent from sky catalogs. ...Optical and Infrared catalogs, but also Radio, X-ray and Gamma ray... .
...to the director of University of Córdoba Observatory, here in Argentina, to see if they can take a plate of that region...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks!

More Defense of the Fourier-Cruttenden Theory of En Bloc Solar System Rotation

Let's consider three frames of reference:

Frame #1. The stars (galaxies, etc., would differ only slightly).
Frame #2. The nodes of the orbits of Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto (i.e., the outer planets for which such points can be measured most accurately).
Frame #3. The perihelia of those planets in Frame #2.

As I mentioned earlier, Frame #2 is, according to old Astronomical Almanacs, about the same as Frame #1. However, old Astronomical Almanacs make a strong and obvious case that Frame #3 rotates retrograde with period roughly (guess what!) 26,000 yr.

A rotating frame is supposed to have centrifugal and Coriolis force. Textbooks would say, that Frame #3 should have both centrifugal and Coriolis force, and Frame #1 neither. So, in Frame #3, according to textbooks, the centrifugal force causes the perihelia to precess (so that they are stationary in Frame #1). Also, in Frame #3, according to textbooks, the Coriolis force causes the nodes to precess (so that they also are stationary in Frame #1). According to textbooks, Frame #1 has neither of these forces, so indeed both the perihelia and the nodes are stationary there.

Really, as near as I can tell from the Astronomical Almanacs, Frame #3 has only the Coriolis force, and Frame #1 the centrifugal force. So, in Frame #1 (i.e., Frame #2) the nodes are stationary and the perihelia precess. In Frame #3, the perihelia are stationary and the nodes precess.

This centrifugal force in Frame #1, equals that due to rotation with period ~26,000 yr. If the sun's gravitational strength is determined from Earth's orbit and again from Mars' orbit, any additional central force that is not inverse-square, will cause a discrepancy between the two calculated values of the sun's gravitational strength. Saying it another way: if the sun's pull on Mars is calculated from the sun's pull on Earth, by applying the inverse square law, the discrepant extra force at Mars from this centrifugal force, in Frame #1, is 2.3% as big as the discrepant extra force that would occur from the anomalous Pioneer acceleration (also, it's of opposite sign). JD Anderson et al, Physical Review 1998, found that they could not rule out discrepant extra centripetal force at Mars, equal to about 1% or less, of what would be observed from the anomalous Pioneer acceleration. So, discrepant extra centrifugal force, of about that magnitude, might exist. For the centrifugal force, increasing as r^1, the outer planets might be a more sensitive test, than Mars; though Anderson said Mars was, in 1998, the most accurate test for constant (i.e., r^0) extra centripetal force.

Pioneer10/11 also show this new centrifugal force. At Earth's orbit, it should be ~1% as strong as the anomalous Pioneer acceleration ("APA"). It is proportional to r^1, so should neutralize the APA, at ~100 AU. A recent determination of the APA, when corrected by me for the tidal acceleration due to Barbarossa, indeed shows a large, steady decrease in the APA very roughly consistent with a linear decrease to zero at 100AU.