It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Our sun probably had a twin

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Elementalist
Wasnt Jupiter a failed star? Maybe the Sun took most of the energy from the binary, out grew it's twin and its twin was cast aside into cooling which became a giant ball of gases?

We have so much to learn about solar mechanics and the functionalities of birthed solar systems..



It's commonly referred to as one, however it has nowhere near the mass actually necessary for a sustained stellar fusion process to take place. So in a sense, it is a smaller version of the kind of body that eventually becomes a star, but by almost 2 orders of magnitude. It would be more accurate to call Jupiter a "failed brown dwarf" which themselves are not even considered "real" stars because they don't have a sustained fusion process.


Hence the part i said the Alpha star absorbed most of the binary energy, therefore outgrowing Jupiter and casting it aside into cooling/shrinking?

Jupiter seems to fit the script of an unbirthed twin, one that wasnt able to heat up and combust as its Alpha twin took its energy to do so.

Just theorizing here.

No, Jupiter is just a gas giant planet. We found many exoplanets that are much more massive than Jupiter.

Jupiter it not a "failed star" and not even a "failed brown dwarf".




posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

Pardon my off topic intrusion but...

Every time I see your avatar it just cracks me up.

Transport proteins... will the wonders of science never cease ??



Watching that little guy carrying his heavy load has me chuckling each time I see it, so thanks for that.


edit on 15-6-2017 by CranialSponge because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Elementalist
Wasnt Jupiter a failed star? Maybe the Sun took most of the energy from the binary, out grew it's twin and its twin was cast aside into cooling which became a giant ball of gases?

We have so much to learn about solar mechanics and the functionalities of birthed solar systems..



It's commonly referred to as one, however it has nowhere near the mass actually necessary for a sustained stellar fusion process to take place. So in a sense, it is a smaller version of the kind of body that eventually becomes a star, but by almost 2 orders of magnitude. It would be more accurate to call Jupiter a "failed brown dwarf" which themselves are not even considered "real" stars because they don't have a sustained fusion process.


Hence the part i said the Alpha star absorbed most of the binary energy, therefore outgrowing Jupiter and casting it aside into cooling/shrinking?

Jupiter seems to fit the script of an unbirthed twin, one that wasnt able to heat up and combust as its Alpha twin took its energy to do so.

Just theorizing here.


Yeah, I understand what you meant, it's just not applicable here. You could literally say that about every gas giant ever discovered. "Failed stars" are what they call brown dwarves, in that they were fairly close to acquiring enough mass to become stars but not quite. Jupiter is nearly 2 orders of magnitude too light to be a star.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius

If our system started as a binary star system should that not mean there should be a lot more heavy elements around or in abundance?

edit on 15-6-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: moebius

If our system started as a binary star system should that not mean there should be a lot more heavy elements around or in abundance?


No that really has nothing to do with it. What determines whether you have heavy elements is the content of the gas cloud that our star formed from. The content of that cloud can vary depending on where it itself came from. In our case we think our star formed from a cloud left over from the supernova of a previous generation star. Supernovas produce heavy elements, that's why we have some. In fact they are pretty much the only way to produce elements heavier than iron, at least naturally.



posted on Jun, 15 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
ill answer that no heavy elements come from older stars not new ones .
a stars life starts with 99.999999999 hydrogen . fuses 4 into helium fuses that into heaver elements and so on .
A big enough start does not die with a wimpier but a bang and the heavy elements are tosed into space .
In ares of the galaxies with starts bumping shoulder ( clusters ) there will be much much more heave elements then our system has .
earth is in the boondocks .



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 05:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
a reply to: face23785

Guess I better stop listening to the Science channel.

Some of those talking heads (such as Michio Kaku) talk down to the audience so much in their attempt to simplify a concept that they end up oversimplifying it to a point that they give misinformation.
Good point. I agree there is a lot of misinformation like that on the science channel, it makes me cringe quite a bit to hear all the misrepresentations.


originally posted by: Saint Exupery
Short answer: Orbits mechanics don't allow it.
Under Kepler's Third Law, if a planet takes the same amount of time to orbit the Sun that the Earth does (which it has to, if it is to remain hidden on the far side of the Sun), then it has to be the same distance from the Sun as the Earth.
Another star in the inner solar system would completely disrupt the orbits of all the planets, and any "perfect" alignment would go right out the window.
True, but the orbital mechanics might allow another earth hiding on the other side of the sun at the same distance. The pre-space-age earthlings wouldn't have been able to see it but it can't hide from us any more with our probes in space.

As for the solar system formation, I think the bigger mystery than where the sun's possible twin might have gone is how we ended up with a relatively stable solar system from an initial process which many think was likely very chaotic. In addition to ejecting one of the binary stars, some early planets or proto-planets were also likely ejected which would be even more impossible to find than our sun's possible early companion.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

"True, but the orbital mechanics might allow another earth hiding on the other side of the sun at the same distance."

Think there was a 1960/70s science fiction B pic that followed a similar premise.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Cheers for that, kind of forgot that it's only supernova/nova that produce the heavier elements that comprise our universe. LoL
edit on 16-6-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I was just reading about this. Intriguing and it was nice to see an article not the doom porn as usual a reply to: moebius



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

If there was a planet in such a position, we would be able to detect it via its gravitational influence. Also, some of our space probes would've seen it.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's all good. I sometimes forget things myself. I've informally studied astronomy for 15 years. I love these kinds of threads so I can learn a little more, and sometimes spread a little knowledge myself.



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur


True, but the orbital mechanics might allow another earth hiding on the other side of the sun at the same distance.
Nope. The presence of other planets would cause the orbit of a planet in such a position to be unstable relative to ours.


So, while we’re being pulled a little forwards in our orbit by Jupiter, that other planet would be on the opposite side of the Sun. And so, we’d speed up a little and catch sight of it around the Sun. Over the years, these various motions would escalate, and that other planet would be seen more and more in the sky as we catch up to it in orbit.

www.universetoday.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I think that article oversimplifies that effect a little. Jupiter would indeed have such an effect on us, but when we got around to the other side of the sun and our hypothetical sister planet that shares our orbit was back in the position we were initially in when we were getting that little tug from Jupiter, it will receive a tug from Jupiter as well. Jupiter continues to move of course, so the effect will not be the same, but over the course of many orbits it will wind up in the same position relative to Jupiter at some point. Over long timescales, I think the effect would basically cancel out. Our orbit would continue to get larger, but so would that of the other planet. What do you think?



posted on Jun, 16 2017 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yes, it is an oversimplification. Jupiter is not the only planet which influences the other planets. Venus, in fact, would have a greater effect but all in all, "Counter Earth" could not hide on the other side of the Sun for very long. Not to mention, as you point out, its effect on other planets.

files.ncas.org...



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Fantasy camp. Gravity didn't come first. It doesn't work that way. Just like LIGO cant detect gravity waves off of funding. It happens in your imaginary construction, not in reality. Bench racers...

Space nerds need a wake up. More mass = more centrifugal, ie antigravity. Everything a particle orbits is orbiting a larger n-body.. Think about it.. THINK about it. Don't wait for somone to lie to you about it in a book. THINK ABOUT IT.

Added mass of an orbiting body = added centrifugal force. Dont even think about gravity yet! Just prove your train of thought wrong, hit bottom, recover and move on.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 05:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
Fantasy camp. Gravity didn't come first. It doesn't work that way. Just like LIGO cant detect gravity waves off of funding. It happens in your imaginary construction, not in reality. Bench racers...

Space nerds need a wake up. More mass = more centrifugal, ie antigravity. Everything a particle orbits is orbiting a larger n-body.. Think about it.. THINK about it. Don't wait for somone to lie to you about it in a book. THINK ABOUT IT.

Added mass of an orbiting body = added centrifugal force. Dont even think about gravity yet! Just prove your train of thought wrong, hit bottom, recover and move on.


Just, like, FREE YOUR MIND, MAN, LIKE, TOTALLY, JUST FLOW WITH IT AND YOU'LL UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING!

Right?



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
Fantasy camp. Gravity didn't come first. It doesn't work that way. Just like LIGO cant detect gravity waves off of funding.

LIGO Detects Gravity Waves

You were saying?

There's forums for pseudoscience. Go visit one.



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BigBangWasAnEcho
Fantasy camp. Gravity didn't come first. It doesn't work that way. Just like LIGO cant detect gravity waves off of funding. It happens in your imaginary construction, not in reality. Bench racers...

Space nerds need a wake up. More mass = more centrifugal, ie antigravity. Everything a particle orbits is orbiting a larger n-body.. Think about it.. THINK about it. Don't wait for somone to lie to you about it in a book. THINK ABOUT IT.

Added mass of an orbiting body = added centrifugal force. Dont even think about gravity yet! Just prove your train of thought wrong, hit bottom, recover and move on.



I take it you are a flat earther?



posted on Jun, 17 2017 @ 08:03 PM
link   
A great reality check is the fact that the orignal paper doesn't mention Earth, the Sun, or even the Solar System anywhere.

The popular media are so keen on tacking those terms on to thing like that, making it more sensational than it really is.

Basically, most stars form in pairs. If our Sun had one, it was lost a long, long time ago.



posted on Jun, 18 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery

Not only but also...

For the two bodies to remain perpetually opposite the Sun from each other, the orbits would have to be perfectly circular.

Not elliptical. In an ellipse, there are TWO foci, the Sun can only occupy one of them, so eventually (like for most of the year), the two bodies would be able to 'see' each other.

Planets travel in an ellipse, not a circle.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join