#1  
Old 28-03-2007, 04:01 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Search for Planet Barbarossa

Object
New planet ?
Coordinates 2000.0
RA: 11h 26m 49s DEC: -0904’21”
Telescope
Cassegrain Relay 400 mm
Focal length /Ratio F/Field
2614 mm/ 6.5 / 18’ x 12’
Site/Position
Tacande Observatory
Longitude : 17g 52m 03,55s W
Latitude: 28 38’ 29.79” N
Height: 765 m.
CCD/Scale/Spectrograph *
ST8XE 0.71”/pixel
Integration details
1 x 10 minutes
Date(d/m/y)/Time (UTC)
25/03/2007 00:41:39
Moon phase %
52.5
Airmass
1.29
Calibration spectra *

Calibration source *

Software
Maxim DL/CCD
Operator/s
Joan Genebriera
Comments
Coordinates of the star GSC 5509:1104

* Spectroscopic only

If you email me, I'll try to email you the photo (sometimes that works).

Last edited by Joe Keller; 29-03-2007 at 08:29 AM. Reason: link faulty
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 28-03-2007, 04:06 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
location of Barbarossa in photo

In this 0.7" resolution photo by Joan Genebriera (electronic, not a scan of film) [the asteroid] is north of the date "25" printed in the lower right corner. [The asteroid, seen as two points of light] is nearer the edge than the bottom. Together with the three stars to the NW, they make a line of 5 points of light.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

Last edited by Joe Keller; 29-03-2007 at 08:32 AM. Reason: negative confirmatory photo by Steve Riley, USA
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29-03-2007, 08:34 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Dear Ms. Genebriera & Mr. Riley,

I compared all of Mr. Riley's photo to its counterpart, Ms. Genebriera's photo "Barbarossa_3" (i.e., the photo with the more northerly coordinates, on which I saw the candidate object). Also I compared them to the SERC DSS2 (Red filter) image in the Aladin archive. Both photos showed excellent correspondence to the archive image.

Other than the candidate object on Ms. Genebriera's photo, I saw nothing on either photo that did not match the DSS2 image (except for obvious very slight defects). In particular, I saw nothing retrograde thereof on Mr. Riley's photo.

I spoke lengthily yesterday with *********, to whom I had emailed Ms. Genebriera's photo. His opinion was that the candidate object was *not* a cosmic ray artifact.

So, it might have been an asteroid on Ms. Genebriera's photo. An asteroid would be out of the field of view of Mr. Riley's photo. A trans-Neptunian object, even as close as 30 AU from the sun (which would give 5 arcminutes motion in 3.2 days now, near opposition) would have been inside the field of view (centered on the candidate object).

Thank you both for your assistance. This initial negative result neither proves nor disproves the existence of a distant planet shepherding a point of the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance. The 1987 SERC image I discovered, is consistent with such a planet.

I'll forward to both of you, any important information I acquire in the future about this. Meanwhile, if either of you take more photos along the ecliptic in this area, I will give my full attention to their analysis.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 30-03-2007, 01:02 PM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
Hi Joe,

Your enthusiasm is admirable (and there are very likely many large objects still out there lying undiscovered) but your observational assessments leave a lot to be desired. You really do need to learn the scientific method and the appropriate mechanisms for confirming and reporting things. Now the next time you report 'finding' something will likely reap more sceptasism that this occurance. The methods are there for a reason..... Without observational experience you might like to leave the interpretation and analysis of images to those with more experience in such work!

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 30-03-2007, 02:00 PM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
I found another disappearing dot, again on a scanned archival Red plate (absent from two other archival Red scanned plates, also one archival Blue and one archival Optical Infrared). Its Red magnitude is +17.8 by comparison with a nearby star with stable catalog magnitudes. Its coordinates are
RA 11 03 12.4 Decl -5 58 09
This is a POSS I Palomar plate from 1954.154. The position is quite consistent with the track, the period and the 1987 archival object (est. Red mag +17.3) discussed above.
Tonight's coordinates, based on great-circle extrapolation & corrected for Earth parallax are
RA 11 25 49.4 Decl -9 03 02.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 30-03-2007, 02:58 PM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
HI Joe,

May I ask by what means you are measuring the images and how you are determining correlation or consistancy with the track of your proposed object? What level of error do you have in your measurements? To extrapolate a position implies you have determined a rough orbit - do you feel inclined to share the orbital parameters?

Is ther extrapolation based on just 2 images? How far appart are these images in time?

Looks like I will be clouded out tonight (taking one or two images is typically no probelm for me - it's just a matter of entering the co-ordinates into my automated observing plan) so I can't look at your co-ordinates.

Now you do realise that images (film, scanned film and CCD) all suffer from flaws (film flaws, dust, dirt and scratches, cosmic ray hits, read noise and hot pixels). Investigating every 'disappearing' dot based on a single image is really a waste of time. A more reliable method is observing a moving dot and even that can be misleading (but far moe reliable that a single disappearing dot)

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2007, 11:56 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Barbarossa thoroughly proven

I found Barbarossa on a third archive plate. There is no longer any doubt of Barbarossa's reality nor of Barbarossa's position. Using the two most credible of these "disappearing dots" (1987 & 1997) Barbarossa's period, assuming circular orbit, matches the progression of the imperfect 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance, to 3% accuracy. As in earlier estimates, Barbarossa aligns in longitude, with one of the five (mean, corrected for Jupiter & Saturn eccentricity) resonance points, to 0.4 or maybe 0.1 deg error.

Corrected for Earth parallax, the four points (there are two competing dots on the 1954 plate scan) lie nearly on a great circle. The change in angular speed corresponds to orbital eccentricity of at least 0.1, or at least 0.25, if one or the other of the 1954 points is used in addition to the 1987 & 1997 points. The Red comparison-based magnitudes of three of the objects are all +17.6 +/- 0.3; one of the 1954 objects is about Red +18.3.

The plates (from online 1.0"-resolution scanned versions) are:

1. POSS-I E (a.k.a. POSS-I Red)(exposures for this series varied from 2400 to 4200 sec) Plate XE671, February 25, 1954, epoch 1954.154.

First dot: RA 11h 03m 12.4s Decl -5deg 58' 09"

I determined the Red magnitude as +17.6 by comparison with the USNO-B Red1 magnitude (Red1 was chiefly determined from plates of this series) of a nearby star with stable magnitude. I found this dot, March 29. If it is Barbarossa, then Barbarossa's eccentricity must be at least 0.25, assuming the validity of the 1987 & 1997 dots.

Second dot: RA 11h 02m 25.16s Decl -5deg 56' 11.3"

By comparison with nearby stars, this dot's Red mag is about +18.3. I found this dot, March 28. It is the brightest of a "flying circus" of five disappearing dots spread over about 1'. Together with the 1987 & 1997 dots, it would imply an eccentricity of at least 0.1.


2. SERC-ER (a.k.a. SERC2 Red)(exposure 3600 sec), Plate 713, January 31, 1987, epoch 1987.08215.

RA 11h 18m 03.18s Decl -7deg 58' 46.1"

Because this sky survey was only one of three used to determine the USNO-B Red2 magnitudes, I determined the magnitude of Barbarossa on this plate, by comparison with both the R1 & R2 magnitudes of four nearby stars, finding +17.3. I saw Barbarossa on this plate, March 4, and realized on March 5 that what I saw, was Barbarossa.


3. SERC-I (a.k.a. Optical Infrared)(exposure 5400 sec), Plate IS713(A438), March 3, 1997, epoch 1997.16711.

RA 11h 22m 16.77s Decl -8deg 29' 30.9"

I determined Barbarossa's Infrared magnitude as +18.1 by comparison with two nearby stars. Though the authors of the USNO-B catalog warn that it is a relatively inaccurate source for magnitudes of bright stars, I used the USNO-B's I-R value for Capella, 0.2, to correct the sunlit Barbarossa's Red magnitude to +17.9. I found this dot March 31. I've found no other Optical Infrared plate online with which to prove the disappearance of this dot. Instead, I found that it is absent from both the SERC Red and MASS IR J,K,H plate scan series, indicating, if not disappearance, then an aberrantly narrow spectrum.


The 1987-1997 track implies a 2775 year period for circular orbit. Recent values of Jupiter's and Saturn's periods indicate that their 5:2 resonance progesses with a period of 2696 yr.

Corrected for April 1 Earth parallax, Barbarossa's geocentric coordinates tonight, assuming a circular orbit through the 1987 & 1997 objects, are:

RA 11h 26m 30.9s Decl -9deg 00' 11"

The position might be 7' W to 1.5' E of this, if one or the other of the 1954 dots is used for prediction instead of, or in addition to, the 1997 dot. Last night Steve Riley imaged an approx. mag. +17.3 dot which tonight will be 3' NW of these coordinates (only 1' above the predicted track), if Steve indeed imaged Barbarossa.

Barbarossa's estimated apparent diameter is 0.9". Barbarossa's estimated retrograde motion is 0.7"/hr.

Sincerely,
Joseph C. Keller, M. D.

Last edited by Joe Keller; 02-04-2007 at 11:44 AM. Reason: increased accuracy
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-04-2007, 07:16 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
When you say 'disappearing dot' do you mean a single pixel? If you are then I am afraid you are mistaken in your identification of this object. On those plates a mag 17-18 object will occupy multiple pixels ('circles' comprising no less than 8-12 pixels)

Single 'brightish' pixels are noise that have not been fully removed from the image.

Edit: I ran your positions through some orbit calculators and I should point out that the 3 positions you indicate cannot fit an orbit of any type.

Cheers

Last edited by higginsdj; 05-04-2007 at 07:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-04-2007, 11:33 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
improved position estimate; other details

Six of the seven "disappearing dots" I've found (on online archive sky survey plate scans) with magnitudes about +18.8 or brighter, fit a mildly elliptical two-body mutual orbit with major axis at least 1.95 AU. The eccentricity is between 0.19 (absolute lower bound) and about 0.38 (better than 67% confidence upper bound). The mutual orbital plane is inclined about 10.7deg to Barbarossa's orbital plane. The mass ratio of these two, Barbarossa and Frey, is 5:1. The period is 42 yr. The implied mass of Barbarossa is between 0.0051 solar mass for 0.19 eccentricity and 0.0080 solar mass for 0.38 eccentricity. The orbital period of the center-of-mass about the sun is 2850 yr, assuming a circular orbit.

The magnitudes of Barbarossa are about +17.3, 17.9 & 18.0; of Frey, +17.6, 18.3 & 18.8. The dimmest Frey magnitude occurs, near maximum elongation, but much nearer to a point at which Frey's orbit intersects that plane (through the center of mass of Barbarossa & Frey) which is parallel to the principal plane of the solar system.

There might be a dust belt there. Neither Frey nor Barbarossa could be found on the March 1986 plate. Then, the line through Barbarossa & Frey, as seen from Earth, was theoretically only 1.8deg from the plane which contained the center of mass and was parallel to the principal plane of the solar system. Now, 21 yrs = 0.50 orbit later, the same situation holds.

In this model, the geocentric coordinates for April 5 (for the next few days the usual minus 1s RA & +6" Decl per day correction applies) are:

Barbarossa: RA 11 26 07.5 Decl -8 59 53.5

Frey: RA 11 27 35.5 Decl -9 10 47.5
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-04-2007, 08:06 AM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Joe,

I am with David on this one. Regarding Joan Genebriera's image posted on metaresearch.org all I see is a processing defect.

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-04-2007, 07:42 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
This is like one of those SPAM posts with randomly selected words strung together to sound something like something but ends up being gibberish!

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-04-2007, 01:38 PM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
I continue to work on arranging the "disappearing dots" into a model of Barbarossa's system. Herein I present my latest, most accurate (correcting my transcription error in the coordinates of one object, and increasing the accuracy of my adjustments for Earth parallax), most plausible and most conservative model to date.

Three dots are plausibly Barbarossa. These are (using the names of convenience I've assigned them as I've worked):

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

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

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

The position of C differs 95 arcsec from its expected, parallax-corrected, great-circle interpolated position between A2 & D. Though this deviation is, I think, about 10x bigger than the errors inherent in my model or in my calculations, the only component of the deviation big enough to demand explanation, is that perpendicular to Barbarossa's path (i.e., the path from A2 to D).

Two more dots are consistent with the moon Frey in a near-circular approx. 1.4 AU, 22-yr orbit inclined only a few degrees to Barbarossa's orbital plane:

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

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

I've found yet three more dots, two of which could be consistent with the moon Freya in a near-circular 2 AU orbit moderately inclined to Frey's:

B8. UK-Red plate approx. date 1986.199, geocentric position RA 11 14 58 Decl -7 42 20

or

C5. SERC (Red) plate 1987.08215, RA 11 16 04.4 Decl -7 47 51 ;

and

E2. SERC-I (Optical Infrared) plate approx. date 1995.140, approx. RA 11 19 43 Decl -8 06 50.

These orbits imply about 0.0054 solar mass for Barbarossa and much lower mass for Frey and Freya. The total system mass thus could be close to the earlier predicted 0.0068 solar mass which smoothed the net Pioneer 10/11 accelerations.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-04-2007, 01:41 PM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Why aren't you telling the truth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by higginsdj View Post
This is like one of those SPAM posts with randomly selected words strung together to sound something like something but ends up being gibberish!

Cheers
The words aren't random and it's not gibberish. It might not be correct, but it's not gibberish. You know that. Why aren't you telling the truth?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 13-04-2007, 06:51 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
<<Text removed to avoid the possibility that it might be construed as ridicule>>

Cheers

Last edited by higginsdj; 13-04-2007 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 13-04-2007, 07:23 AM
bloodhound31
Registered User

bloodhound31 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,628
Should I stick my nose in here?

Boys, be nice.

Lets not let this turn nasty. Joe, continue your search for Barbarossa. You may be wasting your time, you may not. I hope you find it. Anyone who doesnt want to look for this possible object, no one is holding a gun to your head. Let Joe and his believers search. He's not hurting anyone.

My two bob's worth.

Baz.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 13-04-2007, 10:29 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
Don't get me wrong. I do believe there are lots of objects out there yet to be discovered and I will be the first to apologise to Joe if he actually does find something (that can be proven by scientific methods and/or direct observation) - I just believe in proper observation methodologies and the scientific method - neither of which has been publicly displayed by Joe to date.

And lets not keep calling it Barbarossa. The name belongs to Minor Planet 1860, discovered by P Wild at Zimmerwald on 28 Sept 1973 and the IAU will not let you re-use it or anything resembling it.

Cheers

Last edited by higginsdj; 13-04-2007 at 12:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 13-04-2007, 01:27 PM
duncan's Avatar
duncan
Duncan

duncan is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Weipa FNQld
Posts: 1,091
G,day all,

It amuses me no end to watch all this bickering over something that might or might not be out there. Surely if there was anything to this then the really big scopes on Earth and Hubble would have had a go. !!!
All this argueing won't solve anything. Put something big really BIG on it to try and solve it once and for all.

Just my 2cents worth.
Cheers,
Duncan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 13-04-2007, 01:54 PM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
Not being a mathematician myself, a thought just occurred to me......and I could very well be wrong..... but can't I fit 1, 2 or 3 points to any curve ie I could pick 3 random points and I could fit it to any curve/orbit I choose?

With such short arcs over such a long time span how much impact would timestamps have on this situation?

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 14-04-2007, 02:22 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 21-04-2007, 06:16 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
How constant is the trajectory?

I've spent much of my time this week accurately confirming that J. Genebriera did indeed image Frey on March 25, 2007 (00:42 UT) and that S. Riley did indeed image Barbarossa on April 1, 2007 (07:39 UT). The J2000 coordinates of Genebriera's object are

11 26 22.2 -9 4 59

and of Riley's

11 26 25.0 -8 57 26.

(I can't access Aladin from this library so the Riley coordinates are from measuring on the screen with a ruler and therefore slightly rough; 3mm on the screen is 1s RA.)

The center of gravity slowed only 0.69% between the second and third segments, i.e., [Objects C3 & C 1987, Objects D & D2 1997] and [Objects D & D2 1997, Riley & Genbriera Objects 2007]. This corresponds to about 2s RA. The direction changed only 0.0046 radian (i.e., 0.46%) between the two segments. These deviations are smaller than likely would arise from observation bias: I searched entire 15x15' square images for "disappearing dots" and parts of adjoining squares also, rarely finding more than one or two starlike "disappearing dots" per square.

The direction changed 0.86% between the first and second segments, i.e., [Objects A2 & A 1954, Objects C3 & C 1987] and [Objects C3 & C 1987, Objects D & D2 1997]. The center of gravity slowed 3.3%.

The correction for Earth parallax was made by interpolating the sun's position according to old volumes of the American Ephemeris & Astronomical Almanac in the Iowa State Univ. library. For 1954 I had to use the formula therein to convert to J2000 coordinates. On an IBM486 computer I wrote a "BASIC" program to find the rectangular coordinates of every object precisely. I adjusted the objects' distance from the sun (presumed the same for all) so that the angle subtended between 1954 and 2007 equalled that for a body with a slightly elliptical orbit of period 2688 yr (my best estimate of the period of progression of the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance) when at said distance from the sun.

Then I adjusted the mass ratio of Barbarossa (i.e., A2, C3, D & Riley) and Frey (i.e., A, C, D2 & Genebriera) to 0.62:0.38, at which the torsion of the great circle was about constant: that is, the (small) break between the first (32.9 yr) and second (10.1 yr) segments was about twice the break between the second (10.1 yr) and last (10.1 yr) segments.

Corrections for proper motion of reference stars, between the 1987 date of the SERC-Red reference plate, and 2007 or 1954, all were negligible (1997 had its own Aladin reference plate). The aberration of light from the objects is negligible because it affects the reference stars as well; the aberration of sunlight is negligible because the sun's position is needed only for the small Earth parallax correction. The correction for the different distances of Barbarossa vs. Frey from the sun, is negligible.

The decreasing angular speed could be due to the influence of a small distant moon. The moon(s) seem to orbit Barbarossa in a plane near that of Barbarossa's orbit, so any torsion of the great circle would be relatively small.
The strange shapes of both Genebriera's and Riley's objects might be due to rings like Saturn's. The Roche limits for these bodies, a likely distance for rings, would be 1-2" depending on densities. The bodies' diameters should be about 0.8". A barely detectable planetary disk could make a spot smaller than that of a star of equal bolometric magnitude.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 07:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Testar
Advertisement
Limpet Controller
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement