#21  
Old 21-04-2007, 12:02 PM
GeoffW1's Avatar
GeoffW1 (Geoff)
Registered User

GeoffW1 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by higginsdj View Post
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
David,

Very rough stuff this, could be better put.

I am way way behind both of you except on one thing: before assuming the position of resident sceptic (and there is nothing wrong with doubting) please spell it correctly "scepticism".

GeoffW1
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 23-04-2007, 02:07 PM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
OK, based on some physics and what I can gather from your information:

* Semi Major Axis for the parent object = 193au
* Assuming Moon and Planet have same density the Roche Limit of 281,000 km (your 2" estimate of the ring system) means a planet with a radius of 223,016km (3 times the radius of Jupiter) - I'm aware it's a bit of a stretch to assume that an object of this size would have the same density as it's moon(s) so this is just a ballpark figure.
* Assuming that the object does not generate any light itself and based on a low albedo (same as an Asteroid) then an object this size will have an absolute magnitude of -9.1 and at 193AU, an apparent brightness of mag 2.7!

Can you account for why an object so large and relatively close has had no impact on the orbits of 800 currently known TNO's?

Given that the seeing at the 2 sites from which you obtained the reference images are likely to be 3"-4" (regardless of what their pixel scale is) what size does the actual image measure for this planetary disk?

Some advice on measuring an image and detecting an object. A 14" at f/10 is likely to produce a pixel scale of no finer than 0.5"/pixel. However, given the seeing limit (mentioned previously), an object is not going to occupy less then Seeing limit divided by 0.5 pixels in X and Y directions (for my 14" scope example). This is a physical limit. Anything smaller than this, particularly with a sharp increase in brightness to adjacent pixels is not a real object no matter how conveniently located on an image.

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 24-04-2007, 02:42 PM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
more accuracy

"Dot theory" update: high significance.


With a more accurate calculation of Earth parallax, the above-mentioned alignment of presumed centers of gravity of A (1954), C (1987) & D (1997) objects became less perfect. I've been resorting to the IBM486 computer more, to avoid such inaccuracies.

Also, I've found two "disappearing dots" of interest on the B (1986) plate:

"B3" 11 16 51.55 -7 49 41.1
"B" 11 16 56.07 -7 55 14.3.

The following theory is hindered by my lack of success in finding accurately corresponding objects on the C plate. However A2 & A, B3 & B, and J. Genebriera's (March 25) & S. Riley's (April 1) objects (see above for coordinates and other details) seem to correspond to Barbarossa & Frey, resp.

I found accurate heliocentric coordinates for these six objects, using old ephemerides and the above-mentioned "BASIC" computer program. I assumed that all six objects have the same distance from the sun. This distance, 197.7283 AU, was adjusted, as above, so that the overall angular speed 1954-2007 (equivalent to a circular orbit with period 2811.866 yr) would equal that for an elliptical orbit with period 2688.000 yr.

The mass ratio of the contemporaneous pairs of objects was adjusted so that the two great-circle arcs, from A to B and from B to Genebriera/Riley, had exactly the same direction to within a millionth of a radian. The resulting mass ratio was 0.87710:0.12280. Generally there is a ratio which will cause the directions to be the same, because often an equation will have a real solution. Generally a different equation will not be simultaneously satisfied. Here, I found simultaneously that the angular speeds from 1954 to 1986 and from 1986 to 2007 became practically equal, only 0.0307% different (0.00116% per yr).

I checked this graphically as above. By successive approximations at the computer, I found the geocentric coordinates (for G.'s & R.'s objects, coordinates always were adjusted to the midpoint of Genebriera's & Riley's observation times) which would put Genebriera's object on a perfect constant-speed heliocentric great circle with objects A2 & B3. Then I graphed all six objects on the same sheet, with these three points superimposed as the origins for objects of their epoch. I approximated the short great circles between contemporaneous points, as lines, and neglected the nonparallelism of longitude lines. (Also on my graph I neglected the 1% difference between RA & Decl degrees, at this Declination, about -7.2 deg ave.)

When I found the centers of gravity according to the above ratio, they were, as expected, collinear and showing constant speed. (On the graph paper, the errors of the collinearity and the constancy of speed both were about 1%.) Translating the Genebriera & Riley objects equally so that Genebriera's object also lay on the origin, I found by quick but generalized searching at the computer, the approximate unique ellipse centered at that origin and passing through the three presumed Frey objects (A, B, and Riley's). The ellipse was tipped 10deg NE-SW (i.e., 37deg to Barbarossa's orbit). The major and minor semiaxes were 0.25deg (0.86 AU) and 0.10deg, resp., giving i=22deg and a total tip for the Barbarossa-Frey system, of 43deg to Barbarossa's solar orbit.

The positions on the presumed orbital circle then were found. This was consistent with an orbital period of 8.3 yr (almost 4 revolutions, 1954-1986, & almost 2.5, 1986-2007) with only 3% discrepancy between the A-B and B-Riley arcs. The total mass Barbarossa+Frey would be 0.0094 solar mass (Barbarossa alone, 0.00825 solar mass).

The theoretical mass at this distance, needed to produced the CMB dipole, was calculated as above using precise 200- or 2000-step trapezoidal rule integration, and found to be 0.0116 solar mass. (Any additional bodies in the Barbarossa-Frey system, unless closely orbiting Barbarossa or Frey, or very distant, would need to have small mass because of the precise motion of the Barbarossa-Frey center of mass).

An inaccuracy in the tidal Pioneer 10/11 acceleration calculation above, was fixed, and the new parameters applied. The net sunward anomalous Pioneer 10/11 acceleration, after subtracting the tidal forces from the presumed 0.0116 solar mass Barbarossa system, at the four distances tabulated by O. Olsen (A&A, op. cit. 2007 above) becomes:

27 AU: 6.03*10^(-8) cm/s^2
45: 5.38* "
52: 5.68* "
63: 4.25* "

The best figure for the Hubble shift is 72 km/s/Mpc, which is equivalent to 7.0*10^(-8) cm/s^2. Assuming that near the sun, the net anomalous acceleration equals the Hubble-equivalent acceleration (the Galileo and Ulysses measurements of the anomalous acceleration lack the accuracy to confirm or refute this) the anomalous acceleration approximates a normal distribution with peak 7.0 and standard deviation 53 AU:

observed/predicted/difference (relative scale, i.e., 7.0*10^(-8) is 1.00)
0 AU: ~1.0+-0.3/1.00/?
27: 0.86/0.88/-0.02
45: 0.77/0.70/0.07
52: 0.81/0.61/0.20
63: 0.61/0.50/0.11

So, accounting for the tidal force of Barbarossa et al, the magnitude of the anomalous acceleration, as a function of radius, approximates a normal curve with standard deviation roughly 53 AU; with a small hump added near 53 AU.

Object A2 has four dimmer disappearing dots within about an arcminute (6,000,000 mi at 198 AU); two of these are a pair about 20" (2,000,000 mi) apart. Likewise object B3 has a pair of dimmer disappearing dots about 0.75' away and about 10" apart. Barbarossa is a cold brown dwarf: these might be Barbarossa's inner planets. Frey is Barbarossa's Jupiter. Barbarossa's next-biggest satellite already has been named Freya.

Five more starlike disappearing dots have been found (on the C, and D 1997 Optical IR) sky survey images, which seem bright enough to be Barbarossa, Frey or Freya and are close enough to fall on the same sheet of graph paper on which I graphed the Barbarossa-Frey orbit. The largest telescopes used so far to search prospectively for Barbarossa or Frey have been the 16" telescopes of J. Genebriera and S. Riley. Comparison with sky surveys shows that the sky survey dots I seek to relocate are near, if not beyond, the detection limits of these telescopes. Genebriera and Riley have achieved, so far, one detection apiece (Barbarossa and Frey, resp., according to this latest theory).
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 24-04-2007, 05:42 PM
astroron's Avatar
astroron (Ron)
Supernova Searcher

astroron is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambroon Queensland Australia
Posts: 8,826
Joe, could you please explain why the rest of the Planetary Astronomers are not acknowledging your discovery
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 25-04-2007, 07:19 AM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
That seemed a simple enough question that David posed...at 0.01 Solar masses it should be quite bright even at 190 AU. Even Jupiter at 0.001 solar masses, would be magnitude 12-13 at that distance. How it could be at the limit of a 16" telescope + CCD camera beats me. This would indicate something closer to earth size.

I also I see one of the most experienced amateur astronomers on this list (David Higgins) being told off for challenging this claim and giving good reasons.....come on guys !

Terry
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 25-04-2007, 11:57 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
It's OK Terry. I believe Geoff is a teacher and teachers always pick up the spelling mistakes - and rightly so.

My only concern here is that others may 'blindly' take up the search based on Joes data, spending money with online remote scopes (as they appear to have done in the Meta Research forum) looking for something that does not appear to be based on practical physics, current theory or good observational principals.

I've put up some alternative views based on current theory and physics - people can make up their own minds. (Note that Meta Research is based on principals of Alternative Theory). Can you imagine, he's claiming a whole second solar system just 193 AU from our own, protoplanetary disc and all!

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 25-04-2007, 12:17 PM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
Quote:
Originally Posted by CometGuy View Post
How it could be at the limit of a 16" telescope + CCD camera beats me. This would indicate something closer to earth size.
The practical detection limit for a 0.4m scope and CCD is around R magnitude 22. You will find that many 0.35m scopes + CCD's have been regularly able to detect moving targets at R Mag 21 in the UK, US and Australia. Of course this will vary with sky brightness (and I am not talking about darks sky limits here)

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 26-04-2007, 04:15 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
improved version of previous

(Moderator: for the historical record, please do not delete my previous post. It contains only text and therefore consumes little memory.)

"Dot theory" update: high significance.

With a more accurate calculation of Earth parallax, the above-mentioned alignment of presumed centers of gravity of A (1954), C (1987) & D (1997) objects became less perfect. I've been resorting to the IBM486 computer more, to avoid such inaccuracies.

Also, I've found two "disappearing dots" of interest on the B (1986) plate:

"B3" 11 16 51.55 -7 49 41.1
"B" 11 16 56.07 -7 55 14.3.

The following theory is hindered by my lack of success in finding accurately corresponding objects on the C plate. However A2 & A, B3 & B, and J. Genebriera's (March 25) & S. Riley's (April 1) objects (see above for coordinates and other details) seem to correspond to Barbarossa & Frey, resp.

I found accurate heliocentric coordinates for these six objects, using old ephemerides and the above-mentioned "BASIC" computer program. I assumed that all six objects have the same distance from the sun. This distance, 197.7283 AU, was adjusted, as above, so that the overall angular speed 1954-2007 (equivalent to a circular orbit with period 2811.866 yr) would equal that for an elliptical orbit with period 2688.000 yr.

The mass ratio of the contemporaneous pairs of objects was adjusted so that the two great-circle arcs, from center-of-mass A to center-of-mass B and from c.o.m. B to c.o.m. Genebriera/Riley, had exactly the same direction to within a millionth of a radian. The resulting mass ratio was 0.87710:0.12280. Generally there is a ratio which will cause the directions to be the same, because often an equation will have a real solution. Generally a different equation will not be simultaneously satisfied. Here, I found simultaneously that the c.o.m. angular speeds from 1954 to 1986 and from 1986 to 2007 became nearly equal, only a -0.0508% change (-0.001915% per yr). This is typical of the speed change expected in the lower range of possible solar orbital eccentricities.

I checked this graphically as above. By successive approximations at the computer, I found the geocentric coordinates (for G.'s & R.'s objects, coordinates always were adjusted to the midpoint of Genebriera's & Riley's observation times) which would put Genebriera's object on a perfect constant-speed heliocentric great circle with objects A2 & B3. Then I graphed all six objects on the same sheet, with these three points superimposed as the origins for objects of their epoch. I approximated the short great circles between contemporaneous points, as lines, and neglected the nonparallelism of longitude lines. (Also on my graph I neglected the difference between RA degrees & Decl degrees: this changes 0.7% between 6 & 9deg Decl.)

When I found the centers of gravity according to the above ratio, they were, as expected, collinear and showing constant speed. On the graph paper, the errors of the collinearity and of the constancy of speed both were about 1% of the graphed portion, which was in turn about 1% of the total motion; i.e., about 10^(-4) accuracy overall. Translating the Genebriera & Riley objects equally so that Genebriera's object also lay at the origin, I found by quick but generalized searching at the computer, the approximate unique ellipse centered at that origin and passing through the three presumed Frey objects (A, B, and Riley's). The ellipse was tipped 10deg NE-SW (i.e., 37deg to Barbarossa's orbit). The major and minor semiaxes were 0.25deg (0.86 AU) and 0.10deg, resp., giving i=22deg and a total tip for the Barbarossa-Frey system, of 43deg to Barbarossa's solar orbit.

The positions on the presumed orbital circle then were found. This was consistent with an orbital period of 8.3 yr (almost 4 revolutions, 1954-1986, & almost 2.5, 1986-2007) with only 3% discrepancy between the A-B and B-Riley arcs. The total mass Barbarossa+Frey would be 0.0094 solar mass (Barbarossa alone, 0.00825 solar mass).

The theoretical mass at this distance, needed to produced the CMB dipole, was calculated as above using precise 200- or 2000-step trapezoidal rule integration, and found to be 0.0116 solar mass. (Any additional bodies in the Barbarossa-Frey system, unless closely orbiting Barbarossa or Frey, or very distant, would need to have small mass because of the precise motion of the Barbarossa-Frey center of mass).

An inaccuracy in the tidal Pioneer 10/11 acceleration calculation above, was fixed, and the new parameters applied. The net sunward anomalous Pioneer 10/11 acceleration, after subtracting the tidal forces from the presumed 0.0116 solar mass Barbarossa system, at the four distances tabulated by O. Olsen (A&A, op. cit. 2007 above) becomes:

27 AU: 6.03*10^(-8) cm/s^2
45: 5.38* "
52: 5.68* "
63: 4.25* "

The best figure for the Hubble shift is 72 km/s/Mpc, which is equivalent to 7.0*10^(-8) cm/s^2. Assuming that near the sun, the net anomalous acceleration equals the Hubble-equivalent acceleration (the Galileo and Ulysses measurements of the anomalous acceleration lack the accuracy to confirm or refute this) the anomalous acceleration approximates a normal distribution with peak 7.0 and standard deviation 53 AU:


observed/predicted/difference (relative scale, i.e., 7.0*10^(-8) is 1.00)

0 AU: ~1.0+-0.3/1.00/?
27: 0.86/0.88/-0.02
45: 0.77/0.70/0.07
52: 0.81/0.61/0.20
63: 0.61/0.50/0.11

So, accounting for the tidal force of Barbarossa et al, the magnitude of the anomalous acceleration, as a function of radius, approximates a normal curve with standard deviation roughly 53 AU; with a small hump added near 53 AU.
Object A2 has four dimmer disappearing dots within about an arcminute (6,000,000 mi at 198 AU); two of these are a pair about 20" (2,000,000 mi) apart. Object B3 has probably one dimmer disappearing dot about 45" S. Barbarossa is a cold brown dwarf: these might be Barbarossa's inner planets. Frey is Barbarossa's Jupiter. Barbarossa's next-biggest satellite already has been named Freya.

Five additional more-or-less starlike disappearing dots have been found (on my "C", 1987 Red, and "D" 1997 Optical IR) sky survey images, which seem bright enough to be Barbarossa, Frey or Freya and are close enough to fall on the same sheet of graph paper on which I graphed the Barbarossa-Frey orbit. The largest telescopes used so far to search prospectively for Barbarossa or Frey have been the 16" telescopes of J. Genebriera and S. Riley. Comparison with sky surveys shows that the sky survey dots I seek to relocate are near, if not beyond, the detection limits of these telescopes. Genebriera and Riley have achieved, so far, one detection apiece (Barbarossa and Frey, resp., according to this latest theory).
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 26-04-2007, 06:36 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
"dot update"

"Dot update"

One of my five additional nearby starlike disappearing Sky Survey dots, is

"C11" (Jan 31 1987, SERC Red) Strasbourg "Aladin"
RA 11 18 00.41 Decl -8 01 57.7.

Assuming this is Frey and that my previous post is valid, I find with my IBM 486 "BASIC" program above, that Barbarossa should be on this 1987 plate at

11 18 03.006 -7 56 29.4.

There is a magnitude +19 star at

11 18 02.80 -7 56 21.8.

This star seems brighter relative to its neighbors, on this 1987 La Silla sky survey vs. the 1986 "UK Red" sky survey. Its R1 & R2 USNO-B catalog magnitudes are nearly equal, but the documentation doesn't reveal the relative influence of the two or three plates used to compute each magnitude. So, it might be a nonresolved conjunction, or (less likely) occultation.

My computerized Earth parallax correction uses the sun's apparent position. Barbarossa orbits the center of gravity of the solar system: including Jupiter & Saturn. Saturn was near quadrature with Barbarossa then, so its influence changed little between 1986 & 1987. On the other hand, Jupiter was nearly opposite Barbarossa. Jupiter's 30 degree motion in one year would subtract about 0.15s RA from Barbarossa's predicted apparent position in 1987, vs. 1986. So, only the predicted and observed Declinations of the star are significantly discrepant.

My very first discovered sky survey "Barbarossa" object, "C", lies 145" exactly S of the predicted position of Barbarossa. My pixel analysis of this object indicated that it is at least two different unresolved objects (the center of luminosity doesn't lie in the brightest pixel). Object C might be an unresolved conjunction of two of Barbarossa's inner planets. (Such "inner planets" appear on the A and B plates.) If so, then these planet(s) would need 6% the mass of Barbarossa, to move the center of gravity of the non-Frey, inner, portion of Barbarossa's system, 145*0.06/1.06 = 8" S. This would place the predicted Barbarossa at the coordinates of the observed star.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-05-2007, 08:27 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
Riley's Objects #1 & #2 = Frey?

Steve Riley (Buena Vista Observatory, California) photographed what I call his "Object #1" at approx. 07:39 UT on April 1, 2007. By comparison with the 1987 La Silla archive image (on which it is absent), its position (J2000 geocentric coordinates) is

RA 11 26 24.6 Decl -8 57 48.5.

Riley has a new photo which shows what I call his "Object #2" likewise not found on the 1987 archive image. It was taken (midrange of contributing exposures) 05:41 UT on April 24, 2007. Its coordinates (again by comparison with 1987) are

RA 11 26 09.58 Decl -8 55 56.0.

(This second point is corrected for the proper motion of the reference stars but the first point isn't. That's alright, because the relevant stellar PMs are uncertain and of marginal size in both cases, especially the first.)

Using the ephemeris position of the sun at these times, in my above-mentioned computer program, I found that the heliocentric xyz position of these objects differs as though they are the same object which has moved 0.1 AU prograde in an orbit inclined 34 degrees (and moving south) to the celestial equator. Barbarossa's orbit would move it 0.03 AU prograde and is inclined 27 degrees.

There is little remaining discrepancy in the x coordinate. Two-thirds of the remaining discrepancy in the y coordinate is removed by employing my above-mentioned model of the Barbarossa-Frey orbit, but this model does not remove the z coordinate discrepancy. If I do not insist on a circular actual orbit for Frey about Barbarossa, I can move the apparent semimajor axis 37 degrees, until it is parallel to Barbarossa's solar orbit: then, the predicted x, y, and z coordinates of Riley's Object #2 all become roughly what is observed.

Riley uses an 11" telescope [not 16" as I had assumed earlier!]. In Riley's photo I found two different +19.3 stars with stable catalog magnitudes. One of these stars was obvious, and one amounted to a barely discernible pixel overdensity. So, I think the position of Riley's Object #2 is more important than its appearance, which is faint and abnormally small.

Most of the apparent motion between Riley's Objects #1 & #2, is due to Earth parallax. The daily change in Earth parallax is shrinking rapidly, but for the next few days, linear interpolation will predict the geocentric coordinates accurately enough to find Riley's Object, which I think is Frey. When Riley's Object (Frey) is found a third time, then quadratic interpolation can be used to predict the geocentric coordinates.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 16-05-2007, 06:30 AM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
letter to Sec. of Navy (USA)

open letter to the Secretary of the Navy (USA)

To: the Hon. Donald C. Winter, Ph.D.
Secretary of the Navy
Washington, D. C., USA

From: Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
POB 9122
Ames, Iowa 50014 USA

Date: May 15, 2007

Subject: planetary discovery

Dear Secretary Winter:

Please order someone with a big telescope to look for planets near these coordinates:

RA 11h 26m Decl -8.9 deg (J2000)

At 00:42 on March 25, 2007, UT, amateur astronomer Joan Genebriera of Barcelona, Spain, using a 16” telescope and electronic camera at Tacande Observatory on Tenerife in the Canary Is., aiming her telescope at coordinates I provided, recorded objects near

RA 11 26 22.2 Decl -9 04 59 and
RA 11 26 31.8 Decl -9 00 11

These objects seem to be identical with objects found on the online scan of the1954 (48” Schmidt camera) Palomar sky survey plate “POSS-I Red” at these coordinates:

RA 11 02 25.2 Decl -5 56 11 and
RA 11 03 12.4 Decl -5 58 09

and the scan of the 1986 (also 48” Schmidt) Australian sky survey plate “UK Red” at:

RA 11 16 51.8 Decl -7 49 40 and
RA 11 16 56.1 Decl -7 55 14

Assuming a mass ratio of 0.865: 0.135, and a distance, from the sun, of 197.75 Astronomical Units, the center of gravity seems to be in orbit around the sun. The eccentricity of the orbit is < 0.009 with 90% confidence. (The eccentricity of Neptune’s orbit is 0.009.) Though uncommon, double star orbits of this size and eccentricity are known. Known double stars are observationally biased toward systems of more equal mass.

The apparent period of the orbit equals the period of advancement of the 5:2 Jupiter:Saturn resonance, to the accuracy to which the latter is known. Correction for the eccentricities of Jupiter’s and Saturn’s orbits shows that my newly discovered objects lie, in projection, within a fraction of a degree of one of the five mean Jupiter:Saturn resonance points.

The objects lie only two degrees prograde from the positive Cosmic Microwave Background dipole. The dipole lies on the objects’ orbit to within a fraction of a degree, the accuracy to which the dipole is known. This is consistent with a new, gravitational theory of the CMB, which would revolutionize our understanding of the relationship between gravity and electricity.

For reasonable masses, correction for the tidal gravity of the objects, reduces the variation of the Pioneer Anomalous Acceleration. The net Anomalous Acceleration becomes fairly smoothly decreasing with distance from the sun.

I think that despite the likely 0.01 solar mass for the combined objects, they fail to disrupt the solar system, because small shifts in the orbital planes of the known planets, counter the torque. Depending on composition, the objects might have smaller diameters than predicted by published giant planet theory.

The first photos taken in the search for these objects were by amateur astronomer Robert Turner of England, using the 14” telescope and electronic camera of the Bradford College Observatory, also on Tenerife, Canary Is. Amateur astronomer Steve Riley of California, USA, took many photos using an 11” telescope and electronic camera at Buena Vista Observatory in California. The objects are near the detection limit for all these observers. Known stars of magnitude equal to the objects, often are absent or distorted in the photos. Despite these problems, Turner’s later photos, Genebriera’s, and especially Riley’s, show several alternative or additional detections of the objects.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Keller, M. D.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 19-05-2007, 11:18 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
Now Joe you've only asked him to point to one set of co-ordinates yet you believe your discovery could be any any one of 5! Wouldn't it have been prudent to ask for all 5 locations to be searched?

Also, how long are those co-ordinates going to be valid for? It is a moving target isn't it and big scopes have small field of views (unless you are specifically seeking the use of a survey scope - but you didn't ask for one)

Cheers
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 19-05-2007, 01:30 PM
Joe Keller
Registered User

Joe Keller is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17
apparent magnitude: estimated vs. observed

Quote:
Originally Posted by CometGuy View Post
That seemed a simple enough question that David posed...at 0.01 Solar masses it should be quite bright even at 190 AU. Even Jupiter at 0.001 solar masses, would be magnitude 12-13 at that distance. How it could be at the limit of a 16" telescope + CCD camera beats me. This would indicate something closer to earth size.

I also I see one of the most experienced amateur astronomers on this list (David Higgins) being told off for challenging this claim and giving good reasons.....come on guys !

Terry
(I've posted additional information about this to Dr. Van Flandern's messageboard over the last few weeks.)

Uranus is +5.7 at opposition and almost 20 AU out. Barbarossa is almost 200 AU out. The brightness goes as the fourth power of distance because the inverse square law holds both ways (it's farther away, and also the sun is dimmer there). Four powers of 10, is 10 magnitudes. So, if Barbarossa were just like Uranus, it would be about +15.7 (more precisely, +15.9).

Uranus has a rather high albedo, 66% according to a 1983 college textbook. Albedos of 4 to 8% often have been used in recent years as "canonical" albedos in academic journal articles about comet nuclei and Kuiper Belt Objects. Also, a recent article theoretically estimated the albedo of one type of borderline brown dwarf, as 1%! So, it would be fair to use 6.6%, i.e., about 1/10 the albedo of Uranus: +15.9+2.5=+18.4. Using 1% albedo would give +20.45.

The objects I've found and suspected of being Barbarossa, have comparison albedos (these are necessarily somewhat inaccurate) ranging from +17.3 to +20, but mainly +18 to +19. Theoretically, Barbarossa (assuming 1 to 10 Jupiter masses) should be the size of Jupiter only if Barbarossa has a H/He composition like the sun or Jupiter. The same article predicts that if a medium-weight brown dwarf isn't made of hydrogen (even if it's helium or oxygen), it has 1/2 to 1/3 the diameter of the hydrogen version. Of course, this is only theory. That's why observation is so important.

Last edited by Joe Keller; 20-05-2007 at 04:26 AM. Reason: increased accuracy
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 19-05-2007, 02:02 PM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

higginsdj is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 613
OK, so has this object burnt off all it's H/He/O or just formed without it? (ie our sun sucked up all the H/He/O and blew off the rest for this brown dwarf to use.) Or are you basing this all on theories resulting in ever diminishing possibilities.

The only real problem I have with this 'discovery' is the fact that the discovery is based on historical plates in which 'objects' have disappeared rather than on something that has actually been detected.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 19-05-2007, 03:29 PM
CometGuy's Avatar
CometGuy
Registered User

CometGuy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 942
Basically, if you dig around the noise of these images you'll always find a set of points that is a match to any orbit you desire.

This is why closely spaced observations over a couple of successive nights showing consistent motion would be needed to gain confidence that the object exists. For something near the detection limits of the scope you would need 5-6 observations over say a period of a week before anyone (i.e CBAT) took any interest.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 20-05-2007, 11:24 AM
higginsdj's Avatar
higginsdj
A Lazy Astronomer

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

Please do not think that I (and possibly others) are 'attacking' your theories. I for one take it as a given that there are between 1 and > 100,000 undiscovered objects in the outer solar system. I do not think anyone is questioning your theories and calculations. For all I know they may take real genius to perform. What I, and others, do question is the very first step - the 'observational' data on which all your work is based.

You have 1 ~40 year old image and 1 ~20 year old image for which you have not provided any evidence to show that the 'disappearing' dot is real. You have not, for each image on which the dot exists, shown another image taken by the same scope, same night to show that the dot was real and not something transient. The 3rd image that you published shows, to experienced observers, an image defect but you have chosen to ignore this advise and use your own experience.

Now the issue for me is that you have taken what amounts to flawed data, applied a lot of work (and I am not questioning any of the theory in that work) to produce a result that you want others to fork out lots of time and or money to observe. Flawed data in means flawed data out no matter how good/valid the work in between was. If you started off with quality data then you would have an army of amateur and professionals trying to find this object.

As a final note I would like to point out that one of the base requirements of good science is Peer review. The review may not agree with your findings. This does not make your results any more or less valid but taking the reviews that do not agree with your position personally and attacking them is just a waste of of your time - I don't care if you like them or not. Its up to the wider community to judge if good science has been practiced. The reviews themselves can be reviewed by others. Its not about right or wrong - it's about whether good practice has been overlooked, or a mistake has been overlooked or any number of other things that can affect a result. In other words, this is part of what is widely referred to as 'the scientific method'. A method developed and proven over a millennia......

Cheers

David

Last edited by higginsdj; 20-05-2007 at 12:37 PM.
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 09:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Meade Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Australia
Advertisement
Celestron Australia
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement