Requiem for Relativity

This might be nothng but i was monkeying about with some of tools in my fits program and got this image. This is very close to the centre spot of the plate. The tool does something called a top hat histogram. The light from the star is bright in the centre and has a marked fall off at the edges. Stars look like little blobs of pixels but this one is a bit odd.

Got another job done by the Bradford, nem7. No obvious signs of any movement when I blinked the two fits files. What I thought might be, could also be just junk pixels.

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

Hi Joe, on one blink composition I thought I had what looked like a rotation of two objects but it's at the point where the pixels could be noise.

I think we should see if anyone has a super duper fits viewer, as those two images from the Bradford, need to be looked at for a variety of settings. On a home pc it takes ages but I imagine that any observatory has software to find the best level mix for the two plates.

Anyway, I've put the new RA dec up but I've upped the exposure and changed to a neutral density filter, rather than rgb. See if that helps any.

There's a lot of people reading this thread, if some were to get a fits viewer and download the two Bradford files, nem6 and nem7 we can speed up the search.

I now have a pair of relatively dim starlike "disappearing dots" on the March 1986 "UK Red" plate which are consistent with the above Barbarossa/Frey orbit. I don't find dust dimming of the background stars in the area, but the area is sparse in stars so a narrow dust belt in Barbarossa's system can't be ruled out.

Also today I found two bright starlike disappearing dots on a nearby SERC-I (Optical Infrared) plate from February 1995 (the March 1997 SERC-I plate overlaps this area; these dots do not appear on it). One of these dots, when paired with the 7th bright dot above, is consistent with a 5 AU orbit for Freya.

Numerical integration shows that Simpson's rule would have been more accurate than Hermite's rule above (in that integration, the two rules differ by a factor of 5/7). The accurate prediction, based on the gravitational CMB dipole theory, for the mass of Barbarossa + Frey + Freya plus all the other moons and the entire Barbarossa system, is 0.0109 solar masses (perhaps Barbarossa 0.0080, Frey 0.0016, Freya as much as 0.0013). This still makes the net Pioneer 10/11 acceleration more regular than before.

<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 />Hi Joe, on one blink composition I thought I had what looked like a rotation of two objects but it's at the point where the pixels could be noise.

I think we should see if anyone has a super duper fits viewer, as those two images from the Bradford, need to be looked at for a variety of settings. On a home pc it takes ages but I imagine that any observatory has software to find the best level mix for the two plates.

Anyway, I've put the new RA dec up but I've upped the exposure and changed to a neutral density filter, rather than rgb. See if that helps any.

There's a lot of people reading this thread, if some were to get a fits viewer and download the two Bradford files, nem6 and nem7 we can speed up the search.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thanks for the help!