Binary Systems: Is the Universe trying to tell us something?

I don't want to get too scientific with this post, but I noticed something recently that I wanted to share.

The illustration below is from NASA. It depicts a binary star system.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c61232115e48.jpg[/atsimg]

This illustration bears a striking resemblance to the well-known ancient symbol shown below:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/92b9d615e012.png[/atsimg]

Coincidence?


Then, in researching sub-atomic particles, I came across this illustration:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5320639e910a.png[/atsimg]

This is Albrecht Giese's theoretical model for all elementary particles.
What Giese is saying is when you spin two massless particles around each other at the speed of light, you obtain the apparency of a single particle with mass that persists.

Could this be what the ancient symbol is actually illustrating?

Creating the perception of reality

(What follows is further discussion that you can skip if you aren't interested.)

I have a problem with physics because I am trying to reconcile it with Hubbard's spirit-based cosmology. Though the implications of Hubbard's findings on physics were not that important to him, they could be important to physics. This is because they look at the situation from the causative side and tell us exactly why Einstein was forced to conclude that mass was basically just a form of energy.

What Hubbard says, basically, is that anything that we perceive as "real" was created by one or more spiritual beings. The first creative step is to make some space. The second step is to put some particles in the space and make them move (energy). The next step is to do something to make the energy appear solid (mass). And the final step is to do something to make the solidity persist after taking one's attention off of it (time). And thus you get the four basic components of "reality:" Matter, energy, space and time. All that Hubbard was really interested in was the fact that beings seemed to be able to do this. He called this creation by postulate. He wasn't particularly interested in the mechanics of the process.

Physicists have been studying this process from the effect side. They have developed mathematical models that account for just about every sub-atomic phenomenon that has ever been observed. These models include something called the "strong interaction." It is this interaction that keeps energy compressed into matter. I would equate it to a form of spiritual intention.

Giese proposes that anything with mass is composed of pairs of massless particles spinning around each other at the speed of light. This gives us a very basic method for creating a stable illusion of mass out of massless energy. Particles that have mass can also spin around each other, but this would have to be at a speed less than that of light. This could well be one of the most basic mechanisms of this universe.

Here is a color-enhanced photo of three galaxies. The big one is called the "cartwheel." The two smaller ones seem like they each have two spiral arms. So here, on a massive scale, is another illustration of this mechanism.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/450026c473a1.jpg[/atsimg]

comparing a binary system to the Yin and Yang symbol does not seem comparable, since the mass distribution in such a system is often that one star has a larger mass than the other

that Yin Yang thingy has its roots in china and has a dozen or so interpretations.


digging for Giese does not give any results, can we have some more background on this please ?

Comparing a binary system to a ying yang, reminds me of how we have tiny crosses in our DNA or some crazy story like that. ( Thus being said would be ones attempt to say Christianity is real because of the shape of whatever pieces of matter it was is a cross)

Cool picture! The swirling clouds are reminiscent of the yin-yang.
when you talk about Hubbard, are you referring to L. Ron?

reply to post by redbarron626

Yes, I'm referring to L. Ron.

The "Giese" stuff is here.

ag-physics.org...

Possibly a pseudonym, but I can't image why.

I agree with what you first stated. The two pictures resemble each other in many ways.

But hell knows you might be 100% correct on your theory.

S+F

I don't think the universe is trying to tell us something. Out of the many stars, it'll be even stranger if one DIDN'T look like a Yin-Yang sign. But, it can mean whatever you want it to as long as it makes you happy, the reality is there but that's not important, it's your interpretation of it that is.

reply to post by l_e_cox


I must point out two glaring things about your opening post that strike me as somewhat asking for a fail. First, you bring up Binary Star systems, which is FANTASTIC. But then your opening statement declares that you do not want to get too scientific. FAIL! Binary star systems are an item of predominantly scientific interest. If you do not wish to get too scientific,then change subjects!

Second, this is a picture of ONE binary .... there are many others in the universe, and not all of them move the same way. I would guess that in the case of this ONE case among uncountable myriad other examples, is that both stars are of pretty much equal mass , neither dominant . I would have expected that most other binaries have an unequal relationship, which only remains stable due to unusual circumstances of thier orbits. I would have thought also, that when one star is larger and or possessed of a larger gravity well than the other, that this would result in erratic orbits, and possibly even stellar collision, or the consumption of one star by the other by degrees.

Its an amazing thing to think that this picture you posted is so similar to the ying yang, but I doubt that this actualy has any significance. When you think about it seriously , and scientificaly for a short time, you realise that neither the timing of the discovery of, or the existance of this binary, can possibly have any deep meaning.