Entering Age of Aquarius early? Heres a possible why. (Nibiru)

Originally posted by Zaanny
Very good documentary to watch.

Thank you for posting.

It seems that a lot of comments from people in this thread have been from people who did not sit down and watch the 45 min documentary...

I especially enjoyed the part near the end where they state a high percentage of observable solar systems ARE BINARY if not more....

Another good one was our solar system has to have a speeding up and slowing down as the two stars approach and move away from each other for the years of the precession to be the length of time it is.

The part where they actually show you that the ancients knew the sun was at the center of our solar system WAY before we re acquired that knowledge and the rise and fall of enlightenment is tied to the precession made you think....

What else have we lost..

Thank you for sharing some lost knowledge with me.

Thank you for taking this thread seriously unlike most others it seems. And glad you understand.

reply to post by Zaanny


To suggest that we are in a binary system because other stars are is so indirect. Why not simply look out there and see if there is a companion star? Ever wonder why we see other stars with companions and can't tell if we have a companion to the Sun?

reply to post by stereologist


Obviously you haven´t seen the documentary. Please do. If we did not have a companion star, we would most probably have been slingshotted out of the galaxy billions of years ago. Also, there are numerous stars with brown dwarf companions, which was not detected until wise just fyi. Over 70% of stars have been found to have companions as of now. And this number is expected to rise.

reply to post by NeoVain

Saying over 70% of stars have been found to have companions is a pretty broad statement but yes, when considering the Galaxy as a whole and all types of stars there are a lot of binary systems. But when you start looking at various stellar types things start to look kind of different. When you look at stars like our own things start to look more different. When you look at our stellar neighborhood things really change. In our "neighborhood" only 33% of the sun-like stars are binary. The majority of those systems consist of stars of similar types (sun-like stars have sun-like companions).

Recent studies show that the odds go down, way down, when considering a brown dwarf as a binary companion. Brown dwarfs tend to have brown dwarfs for companions, sun-like stars have sun-like stars. The Sun does not have a sun-like companion (we would know about it) and there is small chance that it has a brown dwarf companion.

www.deepfly.org...

Can you point out a source about those brown dwarf systems you mentioned. I'm curious about what the stellar types of the companion stars might be.

reply to post by NeoVain


I have a well known aversion to watching videos. This so-called documentary is not necessarily telling the truth. Many or most do not. I prefer written material since written material is more substantial in content and can be easier to verify that claims made in videos even those that claim to document.

As Phage has so correctly pointed out it is important to apply stats correctly. Understand that there are an estimated 200 to 400 billion stars in the Milky Way. Obviously very few were studied to determine if they had companions. How do you think the sampling was done? The method of sampling leads to limitations in the inferences that can be made. For example, if the study was done on easy to study stars, then this applies only to that class of objects, not stars in general.

When I looked up binaries a while back I ran into this 2006 article, which may be dated now, that claims most Milky Way stars are single.
Most Milky Way Stars Are Single

Originally posted by NeoVain
If we did not have a companion star, we would most probably have been slingshotted out of the galaxy billions of years ago.

Oh dear. That video sounds like it's full of complete nonsense. A companion star wouldn't keep the solar system in the galactic arm where we currently live. The sun does that just fine by itself. We're here in our arm with a lot of the newer stars, bobbing gently up and down (like all the others.) The path of stars closer to the galactic center and those farther away aren't being changed by whether or not they have a second or third sun.

Also, there are numerous stars with brown dwarf companions, which was not detected until wise just fyi. Over 70% of stars have been found to have companions as of now. And this number is expected to rise.

I think that statement's going to be hard to prove. We're just starting to see extrasolar planets (and it's expected that a lot of stars will have them) but we can't clearly see ALL the stars (like all the ones in our globular clusters and all the ones in the Andromeda galaxy and so forth.)

Our sun isn't a binary system.

Set up a model like this: www.worsleyschool.net...
...and ask yourself this:
* how does Mercury get around the sun in a regular circular orbit with a HUGE gravity-sucking star lurking so close to the sun? Mercury's orbit is a circle and not wobbly (as it would be if there was something there. In fact, Mercury's orbit would be totally unpredictable.)
* Why is the orbit of Venus so nearly circular? It would be even closer to this "invisible sun in Earth's orbit" and should suck that planet to pieces or yank it off its circular orbit: Venus factsheet
* why do comets and spaceships go right around the sun and not get sucked into the gravity well of another sun?
* and finally... explain how we can do the math to predict the path and return of something that goes behind the sun with some fairly simple math (calculating the path of a circle... or, rather, an elipse) and we don't have to adjust for "ooops! somethings dragging it away.!"

reply to post by Indellkoffer


You should really watch that documentary i posted in the op since most of your post would be debunked then, just look those things up they mention as well.

Also for you "point" that we absolutely can not have a companion, well just look right here what the NASA says about it themselves. (skip to 2:20 if you are in a hurry)

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NeoVain

 

Saying over 70% of stars have been found to have companions is a pretty broad statement but yes, when considering the Galaxy as a whole and all types of stars there are a lot of binary systems. But when you start looking at various stellar types things start to look kind of different. When you look at stars like our own things start to look more different. When you look at our stellar neighborhood things really change. In our "neighborhood" only 33% of the sun-like stars are binary. The majority of those systems consist of stars of similar types (sun-like stars have sun-like companions).

I am sorry but the numbers i have seen are all from various astrophysicists blogs, articles and sites such as answer.com. They ranged from 55% to 2 out of every 3 stars being binary, and these numbers are all based on the findings before wise was even launched. Wise found alot of brown dwarfs. 70% is a cautious estimate, since these numbers are, last i heard, still being analyzed. Which is really another way of saying they are not finished being censored enough to be fit for public release yet.

Recent studies show that the odds go down, way down, when considering a brown dwarf as a binary companion.

You assume that we have found all brown dwarfs. Or that the star in question, as it does not have a visible companion, does not have a companion. Also, did you base this assumption with the wise data included, or excluded.

reply to post by NeoVain

You quote statistics and provide no sources. You completely ignore the significance of stellar types and regions (everywhere in the galaxy is not the same) in your use of those statistics.

I'll ask again. What are the stellar types of the newly discovered (or any) brown dwarf binaries? What percentage of brown dwarf binaries include a sun-like, or even a sun-similar star as their companion?

What good does it do to throw around a number like 70% (with or without a source) if it includes type O stars (almost all of which are binaries and are very, very different from the Sun)? What's the point of including brown dwarf binaries if there are few (if any) which have been found with a sun-like companion?

I provided sources (within the link I provided) which show it is unlikely that the Sun has a brown dwarf companion. If you want to speculate and say the Sun might have a brown dwarf companion, fine. If you want to start reciting statistics to refute the information I provided you should; a) provide the source of those statistics and b) say why they are relevant. Without those things the information you offer is useless in attempting to demonstrate that your speculation holds any weight.

You assume that we have found all brown dwarfs. Or that the star in question, as it does not have a visible companion, does not have a companion. Also, did you base this assumption with the wise data included, or excluded.

I assumed nothing. I provided the statistical evidence based on real world observations to show that it is unlikely that the Sun has a brown dwarf companion.

You seem to assume that all stars are the same. You seem to assume that a star is just as likely to have a brown dwarf for a companion as it is any other type of star. What is the basis for those assumptions? You then assume, based on those assumptions, that it's likely that the Sun has a brown dwarf companion. If you have no basis for your first assumptions, how can you base the final one on them with any confidence at all?

reply to post by NeoVain

Also for you "point" that we absolutely can not have a companion, well just look right here what the NASA says about it themselves. (skip to 2:20 if you are in a hurry)

The video is very clear to suggest that they might find a closer star than the known close stars. It does NOT say a companion star.

wow op your getting tag teamed by the two biggest disinfo agents on this site, bad luck...

I found your post interesting and will be off to some research to find out what the deal is with this - rather than taking the word of these two as gospel (which it's sad to say, does seem to happen a lot here).

It's a shame when a thread gets derailed like this... would be nice to hear the opinion of OTHERS

reply to post by doubledutch


Do you have any particular issue that you'd like to point out as disinfo or do you just want all us to take you word for it?

For example, in my last post I pointed out that the video never claims the existence of a companion to our Sun. Do you want to dispute or are you here as a disinfo agent?

reply to post by stereologist


yes

no

reply to post by doubledutch


What are these yes and no referring to?

The last question was a choice of A or B and you said no.

It looks like you are a disinfo agent. The typical tactic of a disinfo agent is to claim that others are.