The theory we inhabit a Binary Star system?

reply to post by Hammaraxx


Yeah... Looks like I'm going to have to beef up this thread; seeing as how people are thinking I'm talking about precession and whatnot..

But yes: you are correct, we wobble because of gravity and that causes precession.

Not every clump of something needs to be a clump of matter.

What if binaries aren't just stars and planets/planetoids?

reply to post by igigi
G'day igigi,
The precession of the stars is a fascinating subject.
I don't want to seem rude, but I think you missed my premise.

If you look at the pictures in my last post again you will see that I'm actually saying the Earth does NOT wobble.
The tilt of the Earth stays true* but as all the stars, including our Sun, rotate around the Orion Spur (galactic arm), from Earth it only appears the tilt wobbles. The wobble is an illusion that is only seen from Earth.

Here is a closer look at what I mean.[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/05d0e7d78714.jpg[/atsimg]

*There are some slight variations to the tilt but they do not effect or cause the precession.

reply to post by Aeons
G'day Aeons,

Originally posted by Aeons
Not every clump of something needs to be a clump of matter.
What if binaries aren't just stars and planets/planetoids?

Great question!
Although if you ask that in relation to my suggestion that we are orbiting "nothing", please see my post above.
I am suggesting the whole galactic arm is in a spinning / rotating / spiralling motion.
The Hammar Axis is an imaginary centre point our sun appears to orbit as it spins with the Orion Spur.
Imagine drawing the imaginary centre axis of a whirlpool of water, it doesn't have to be a straight line.

reply to post by Hammaraxx


Errrm... I donno man. I would argue that the Earth *does* wobble, and it's due to Precession.

Visual representation of Earth's Precession.

Furthermore, I don't see that you're grasping the full concept of this theorem. I'm not saying the sun doesn't orbit the Galactic center or anything like that... I'm just saying that the Binary Research Institute has some great data on the idea that our sun has a counter-part to *it's* precession through space/time...

reply to post by Hammaraxx


Your picture doesn't mean anything to me. Whatever it is you are depicting, I can't put it together.

I'd probably need very detailed description so that I could construct it in my head, or see a moving example demonstrating the effect.

I at best grasp what you trying to demonstrate as an idea. But if that idea pans out, I can't see it.

reply to post by Aeons


To be honest, I would prefer Hammaraxx to make his theory in *another* post. That would relieve any thread "hi-jacking" or anything; and also provide him with a forum (thread) to expound his theory and gain more concerted conversation to that effect.

Hammaraxx: please post a link to your thread when it is written; that was discussion on *your* subject will not be lost in this thread, but maintained in your thread concerning your theory.

Thank you.

Originally posted by igigi
Acutally, I think the data at the BRI would say otherwise...

Actually what you are looking for is NEMISIS

A brown dwarf star believed to be five times the size of Jupiter is theorized by scientists to have been behind the mass extinction of prehistoric life on earth 26 million years ago... and they believe that it might happen again.

comet-showerThis star, nicknamed Nemesis by NASA scientists, emits only infrared light and is practically invisible to many of our conventional star gazing tools, is believed to be traveling on a 26 million year orbit of our Sun (or roughly 25,000 times that of the Earth's orbit). it is theorized that this icy orb of death travels along it's abnormal orbit, it's massive gravitational pull dragging with it oortcloudpicasteroids and comets out of the Oort Cloud, a vast celestial sphere made up of rocks, ice balls, and space dust twice as far away from the earth as it is believed Nemesis is. [It's believed that many of our solar system's asteroids and comets come from the Oort Cloud.]

www.theweeklyconstitutional.com...

Getting WISE About Nemesis


Artist concept of the NASA WISE mission. Image: NASA/JPL

Is our Sun part of a binary star system? An unseen companion star, nicknamed “Nemesis,” may be sending comets towards Earth. Throughout history, such impacts could have had a profound effect on the evolution of the biosphere by causing regular mass extinctions. If Nemesis exists, NASA’s new WISE telescope should be able to spot it.

astrobiology.nasa.gov...

Sun's Nemesis Pelted Earth with Comets, Study Suggests
www.space.com...

Unfortunately people are using the Nemisis search and calling it Nibiru... Oh well...

reply to post by zorgon

Exactly, I didn't want to make the direct connection myself, but Zorgon... here ya go!

Personally I prefer SOHO over WISE Planet of the Crossing, Nibiru, Nemisis.... My buck's on the Nemisis (binary star system) but then again there's this...

SOHO data would suggest that this isn't simply Venus...

reply to post by Hammaraxx

I am suggesting the whole galactic arm is in a spinning / rotating / spiralling motion.
The Hammar Axis is an imaginary centre point our sun appears to orbit as it spins with the Orion Spur.
Imagine drawing the imaginary centre axis of a whirlpool of water, it doesn't have to be a straight line.

This idea makes sense to me but I'm no scientist or mathematician, so I'm trying to put all of the above terminology into my own words to understand what is being said here. Are you suggesting that the entire "galactic arm" as you call it is moving thru a vortex of some sort - such as a black hole (the centre axis of the "whirlpool"), and carrying our entire Milky Way galaxy into another plane of existence? Or am I relying on my imagination and lack of scientific / mathematical knowledge too much?

reply to post by Time2Think


Allow me to illuminate the subject Hammeraxx is going into:

One would think with a spinning spiral galaxy you would have much mass/inertia at the center (faster objects) and slow objects about the edges. What we observe though is quite different; the outer edges of galaxies go ~the same speed as any other part of galaxies. Although I too have a hard time deciphering what Hammeraxx is trying to get across; I hope he posts *his own thread* and links it here.

From www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...
Never-A-Straight-Answer's "Get a Straight Answer" forum

48. Around what does the Sun revolve?

Hello,

My almost 8 year young son Adam and I have a question about the revolution of the sun. We know that the planets revolve around the sun, and all have rotational periods also. We see that the sun aside from having a rotational period, also has a revolution of some 250 million years. We are curious what it is that the sun is revolving around?
Reply

I can only guess that your son came across a reference to the rotation of the galaxy. Many galaxies are round and rotate around their center, and presumably ours does too, and so the Sun and the solar system share that motion.

What do they rotate around? Good question. There is SOMETHING at the center of the galaxy, and radio astronomers have determined it is very compact--I read somewhere, smaller than the orbit of Saturn, or maybe Jupiter. It also seems massive, but does not shine brightly, and most astronomers favor a humongous black hole, created in the early years of the universe (yes, Adam, we are safe from it).

Still, what holds galaxies together is a bit of a mystery. If it were just the gravity of something pulling it towards the middle, a galaxy would rotate like the solar system--fast motion near the middle, slower and slower as one gets away. Vera Rubin has examined the light of galaxies and has determined (by the Doppler effect) that many of them, apart perhaps for the outer edges, rotate together, like a spinning dish, which is SLOWEST near the middle.

So, Adam, maybe the correct answer is: we do not know.

reply to post by igigi


Interesting.. makes me think about Centrifugal_force a lot. Ever hear about a Cosmotron? I remember going to a bunch of amusement parks as a kid and these rides they used to have called the Cosmotron and the Gravitron - it was basically the same exact ride with different names at different parks, but there were some differences.

The one version everyone would climb into the thing then put their arms and legs out against the wall and wait for it to start spinning around, then be "stuck" to the middle of the wall... the second version everyone would go inside a building and sit down in a cart that was on a track, then the ride would spin you around and bounce you up and down while blasting really loud music and a bunch of bright lights all over the place - whoever got into the cart first usually ended up getting squashed against the wall by whoever got into the cart second - that part kinda sucked as a kid but would be fun on a date.

I have no clue if any of these rides are even running anymore, it's been several years since I've seen them at any amusement parks, but then again I haven't been to one for around 5 years now...

reply to post by Time2Think


Oh, definitely, I've been on clones of those rides often; cheap thrills are cheap and easy to operate, eh?

But yeah, it's interesting when science expects a result and the universe says, "Nope, try again." Stars on the outside should go slower! Nooope, they go the same speed. Pretty sure the current theory on that is matter is embedded in anti-matter "bladders" or what-have-you form of making sure clumps of matter stay clumps of matter...

It just screams back at us that we're missing some fundamental function of physics..

reply to post by igigi


Yea that's basically string theory put into normal everyday language. I've done plenty of reading on it and all kinds of other topics over the years. Did Hammeraxe start up his own thread yet or not? I guess he hi-jacked this one, doesn't seem like too many people care anymore. Oh well.

reply to post by Time2Think

Nope, Hammaraxx must be still working on his thread.

Some day... I'll get to this post. There's much more I need to look into for a more in-depth post..

Originally posted by loner007
The sun has no binary companion. The sun ate up its companion a long time ago thats why the sun has more of a certain element in its make up. I cannot name the element or find a link but its out there somewhere.

Well, the sun could have originally been in a three-star system, no? And ate up one companion? That would account for the element composition and still allow a binary companion in the present system

Originally posted by igigi
reply to post by Time2Think

 

Nope, Hammaraxx must be still working on his thread.

Some day... I'll get to this post.

There's much more I need to look into for a more in-depth post..

edit on 13-1-2011 by igigi because: .

I think the binary system theory is a very interesting try at finding answers to some existing paradoxes. I hope you continue to keep us poted on this. Did you ever get a chance to see "The Great Year"? I posted the youtube link earlier in this thread. It is promoting the binary sun theory in a very plausible manner, IMO.

reply to post by igigi


You have to wonder if the government knew about some large body entering our solar system, would they tell us.

However, if it is at least as large as Mercury, then we should see it with the naked eye, unless for some reason its surface somehow does not reflect light.

Doesn't seem reasonable.

The only other thing that crosses my mind when talking about this, is the idea of "Trinity"; if it's a trinary system, it might explain the idea of the "Trinity" found in Christianity and I'm sure several other religions; God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit.

When it comes to religion I DO believe in a "god" but my version of "god" is more on the idea of everything being energy. We know that there is positive or "good" energy, and negative or "bad" energy, and we know that these both attract each other. We also know that there is "neutral" energy which turns into either positive or negative depending on what charge it has... anyway if there really are 3 different suns, (positive, negative, and neutral) this idea would make a lot more sense.

Originally posted by poet1b
However, if it is at least as large as Mercury, then we should see it with the naked eye, unless for some reason its surface somehow does not reflect light.

If it's a dwarf star that puts out energy in only the infrared, gamma or x-ray frequencies of EM radiation, then no we would not see it with the naked eye... except maybe when it blocks out stars it is passing in front of