Requiem for Relativity

Today I redid the above calculations resulting from my theory that the CMB is due to gravity within the solar system. My calculation is exact to first order in the mass of the planet considered, as a fraction of the solar mass. Because none of the orbital radii considered are close to the 52.6 AU barrier, the integrand encountered does not become large or infinite (though this would be only a removable singularity in the integral). Hermite's 7,16,7 rule here is accurate; Simpson's 1,4,1 rule would have been 30% low, for a one-step application.

This more accurate calculation is qualitatively similar to my earlier one. In the effective 11.2 yr between the COBE 4-yr & WMAP 3-yr observations, the CMB dipole retrogressed 0.27(+/-0.22)deg along the heliocentric ecliptic. Without the theoretical effects of N,U,S&J, this would have been 0.94deg retrogression. On the other hand, the prograde motion of Barbarossa would cause 1.53deg progression of the dipole.

Theoretically the dipole should have become a few microK weaker (mainly due to Neptune's approaching opposition to Barbarossa) instead of a few microK stronger between the WMAP 1- & 3-yr results, but this was within error bars. The predicted mass of Barbarossa from this model is 0.0068 solar mass. Barbarossa is 0.7deg S of the CMB dipole in heliocentric ecliptic latitude; 1/3 of this discrepancy is explained by Neptune (the other planets have negligible effect).

For the WMAP 3-yr result, Barbarossa led the CMB dipole by 3.1deg after removing the effect of J,S,U&N. The COBE 4-yr CMB dipole lagged Barbarossa only 3.1 - 2.5 = 0.6 (+/-) 0.2 deg. WMAP tended to make observations nearer quadrature to the sun; COBE nearer opposition. Also, 1/52.6 radian = 1 degree. This suggests that the true CMB dipole is 0.5(+/-)0.1 deg N of Barbarossa and < 0.6 (+/-)0.2 deg W of Barbarossa.

I'm now estimating 11h 27m 9.6s, -9deg 12' 36" (this is the average of two differently derived estimates 7' above and below this, which I gave to Lowell Observatory) for March 10. To correct for the date, subtract 1.1s RA and add 7.5" Decl (i.e., less negative, toward equator) per day.

The correction is pretty accurate until April 10. A 14' field of view is barely big enough to include my two about equally likely estimates, so there's a 50% chance of being in the field, 25% chance of being above & 25% chance of below.

Okay, I've put tha job onto the Bradford as nem4, dumped the last nem4 job. I hate to harp on about it but these two people in your state with telescopes, that won't look for this object. Try them again but this time say that to your friends it will have the name you gave it but to the world it will be what the international astronomy body decide what it's to be called.

In my local pub nobody cares much about the speed of gravity but they did care, very much, about the name of a possible brown dwarf in the neighbourhood. They asked if it was legal for the discoverer to name the thing. I said, I didn't believe it was. Perhaps the people with telescopes are wary of the name you've given the object. Honestly, the press conference would end up in an uproar, and that would steal their kudos.

If an unprincipled mercenary dog, such as myself [] discovered it, I'd call it the planet "Coca Cola." That way I'd be sure of being passed a huge cheque under the table, by a company that shan't be named. Of course I wouldn't do that [] No, I'd e - mail every large multinational, to get them to bid [8D] The planet "Nike" sounds good, I could claim it as being from mythology [] Then there was a little known Greek god called "Kentucky fried chicken." [][][}][]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Stoat</i>
<br />Bradford robotic telescope images, the first is at 11 07 24, -6 38 50
next at 11 06 02. -6 28 27

Go to the Bradford web site and look at the latest jobs, these are nem2 and nem3. Perhaps if we decide on an exposure we can put the same job up a few times and then do a blink comparison in photoshop.




<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm unable to match these photos with the Aladin plates centered at the same coordinates, even if I switch the labels or move the Aladin coords a few arcmin. Nor is there a very good match with the Millenium Star Atlas.

If the labels were switched, the bright star at the bottom edge of the lower photo, corresponds to the 8th magnitude star near the SE corner of the degree grid on p. 801 of the Millenium Star Atlas. The bright star toward the bottom right of the top photo, corresponds to the 9th mag star near the center of the same degree grid in the atlas. The centers of these photos then would have to be displaced one to four arcminutes in each direction.

The Hipparcos cataloged stars were observed ~100x, between mid-1989 & mid-1993. From the Millenium catalog census, apparently inclusion of 11th mag stars was only partial, and a few 12th mag were included.

The Tautenburg plates (link originally found by Stoat above)(80" Schmidt, world's biggest, near Jena) include two, #3855 & #8559, which lie on the track I've been discussing, but according to my newest estimate of the position and speed, neither plate should show Barbarossa.

The difference between the CMB dipole, and Barbarossa's position, might be explained by non-Lambertian emission at the 52.6 AU surface. This phenomenon is well-known for medical X-ray screens:

"The spectral distribution of the X-rays proved not to be important. ...

"The X-ray angle of incidence on the screen's surface was also found to be unimportant. ...

"...total light flux actually emitted from the screen is systematically less than that calculated according to Lambert's law, varying from 8% for very thin screens to 25% or even more for screens of medium and large surface densities."

- Giakoumakis & Miliotis, Physics of Medicine & Biology 30:21+, 1985.

The WMAP scan geometry is much less symmetrical than COBE's. A deviation of the CMB dipole of the order of Earth's orbital eccentricity could ensue.