Extreme observatory in the Antarctic: what are they looking for?

Originally posted by jeichelberg
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

I never said anything was in the solar system. But speaking of the solar system, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are in the solar system and can't be seen with the naked eye. Mercury is in the solar system and yet is only intermittantly viewable because of the glare of the sun. All the planets in the solar system travel behind the sun at some point and are not viewable.

When I said visible, I included the use of telescopes...and of course, there are times when things are not visible...anything behind the Sun would be invisible...

But the object in the stills you presented (and shot with a camera) would be visible to the naked eye...Have you come to some sort of connection between the still photos you presented in the OP and the presence of telescopes on the South Pole? If so, would you share that connection/conclusion/hypothesis?

Thank you for your input. My highly speculative thinking on this is that a reason for the convergence on the South Pole could be that there is something that is best seen from there. Whether or not it would be Planet X, an asteroid, a binary or something else is up for grabs. The object in the photo was NOT visible to the naked eye. It was fiddling around with settings on several cameras that displayed what still could well be lens flare. It it's not lens flare, it's possible for something to be enough out of the suns' glare to view better from a distant latitude.

If our sun has a binary, and with recent discoveries that seems more and more likely, why would it be alone and why would it not have objects of its' own circling it? So my thinking is that it is not one object but a number of objects we might set our sights on.

I don't even really know if this qualifies as a hypothesis because I take my cue from astronomers I respect and what they look for to explain the things they are seeing.

Originally posted by luxordelphi

If our sun has a binary, and with recent discoveries that seems more and more likely,

what discoveries are those?

reply to post by CherubBaby


Thank you, CherubBaby, for your contribution. One of the articles I read said a 23 degree square section of sky. Because the telescopes were trained to the sky directly south to the pole, the stars there should basically circle rather than rise and set and so they would be viewable for 4 months at a time (I'm estimating twilight out of the 6 months of dark skies) and anything against that backdrop would be viewable too. Occultations would be viewable too. In theory, if anything was coming from a southern inclination and was not as far as a fixed star and not as close as the solar system, this would be a good place to view it and large telescopes would not be necessary.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by luxordelphi

If our sun has a binary, and with recent discoveries that seems more and more likely,

what discoveries are those?

Discoveries that binaries and trinaries are perhaps the norm instead of the exception.

reply to post by luxordelphi


So not actual evidence that there is a multiple component to our sun - just that multiples are more common than we had thought?

That doesn't actually make our sun "more likely" to be a multiple - it just means as a single it is a type that is less common than we had thought.

reply to post by luxordelphi


The point I was trying to make is this...anything that is capable of being photographed with the type of camera (as a matter of fact the camera is identified as a type of Canon SLR, not many different types) that is presented the OP stills is certainly visible to the naked eye (i.e., of course, this being interpreted as if one was actually capable of looking at the sun...for instance via approved goggles or lenses). The angle and perspective of the OP stills clearly indicate there was no special telescopic lens or filters in place...EDIT: PLUS, the source you refer us to CLEARLY states this:

I grabbed my sunglasses and had a look through my canon digital SLR camera, and well I couldn’t believe it! I could see a perfectly circular object, slightly red in colour compared to the sun. I couldn’t fully believe what I was seeing so called my partner to confirm what I was seeing. He too saw it.

So, in the OP source, it states it was visible to the naked eye...in other words, zero magnification necessary...By the way, what the external source author did in this case is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and could cause blindness...No one should take sunglasses and then believe they can look at the Sun...No one should take sunglasses and think they can then look through a camera at the Sun without seeing spots...As a matter fo fact, it can lead to blindness...DO NOT DO THIS...

The OP included photos from New Zealand and this what I am still confused about...it does nothing to add credence to any speculative purpose for the placement of telescopes specifically on the South Pole in order to view an object that can only be seen from the South Pole...

Any objects directly above the South Pole would not drift very far from that point...

Take Polaris for instance...Polaris appears to circle the celestial pole no more than 1.5 degrees away from the celestial North Pole...

Is it possible for us to have binary? I would submit it is highly unlikely, especially if we have the ability to detect binaries so far away...we have known about binaries for a very long period of time...We have had names for constellations and stars since ancient times...I would think we would know about a binary...

reply to post by luxordelphi

Discoveries that binaries and trinaries are perhaps the norm instead of the exception.

Incorrect. Recent studies show that singles are in the majority.

This comparison indicates that most stellar systems formed in the Galaxy are likely single and not binary, as has been often asserted. Indeed, in the current epoch two-thirds of all main-sequence stellar systems in the Galactic disk are composed of single stars.

iopscience.iop.org...

We consider the multiplicity of stellar systems with (combined) magnitude brighter than 6.00 in Hipparcos magnitudes. We identify 4555 such bright systems, and the frequencies of multiplicities 1, 2, . . . , 7 are found to be 2722, 1412, 299, 86, 22, 12 and 2.

journals.cambridge.org...

Combined with the fact that about 85 percent of all stars that exist in the Milky Way are red dwarfs, the inescapable conclusion is that upwards of two-thirds of all star systems in the Galaxy consist of single, red dwarf stars.

www.redorbit.com...

reply to post by Phage


To quote Jeffrey Lebowski:

"That's like your opinion, man."

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by luxordelphi

 

So not actual evidence that there is a multiple component to our sun - just that multiples are more common than we had thought?

That doesn't actually make our sun "more likely" to be a multiple - it just means as a single it is a type that is less common than we had thought.

edit on 7-12-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)

What???? Thank you for your input, I think. Are you on a roller coaster? Here's your concession: jury is still out.

reply to post by luxordelphi


OK - I'll try again - the fact that multiple star systems are more common than we thought is not actually evidence that our own star system is a multiple. That simply tells us about how many single and multiple star systems there are - nothing at all about whether ours is one or other.

If it were a multiple there would be gravitational effects that would be noticed - we knew enough about gravity to be able to detect the presence of Neptune because of slight "problems" with the orbit of Uranus over 150 years ago.

The presence of a second star, a binary twin to the sun, would cause massively larger gravitational effects than led to that discovery, and would be noticeable due to the effects on the orbits of all the planets, and on the movement of the sun itself.

There are no such effects AFAIK - so there is no "chance" that our solar system has a binary sun.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

There are no such effects AFAIK - so there is no "chance" that our solar system has a binary sun.

Boat moon in Kansas.

The smoking gun...

reply to post by jeichelberg


Thank you for your opinions and assessments. The photographer specifically states that there was nothing to see with the naked eye and that sunglasses and a camera lens brought the object into view. The photographer specifically states that there was more than one camera involved and more than one photographer involved. The photographer specifically states that a 2nd camera was put into service and tested to find the correct settings to best capture the object.

poleshift.ning.com...

I don't know anything more about the photo than what it says in the link. And that's what it says: not visible to the naked eye, two cameras, two photographers and fiddling to get the correct settings.

I've already given my assessment of your other points: why is it necessary for there to be only one object? It's not. There are many objects in and out of our solar system being discovered as we speak. Why? Because someone is looking for them. But your opinion and assessment is valued and appreciated.

As far as the binary...well we have known about asteroids since ancient times but the one closest to home is a recent discovery. Sometimes line of sight can fool you and then it's a good idea to follow the effects. Astronomers long suspected a Trojan but only recently found it. I, personally, think it's exciting to contemplate a binary or trinary or quadruple and to think that maybe we, fortunate of the fortunate, live in the times when a Tatooine sky becomes a reality, if only for a comparatively short duration, is remarkable.

reply to post by ColAngus


Why is a "boat moon" evidence of anything at all that is unexplained??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Maybe check out some of the threads on the moon allegedly behaving strangely and whatnot.

Some are of the opinion that the boat moon being seen in the Northern Hemishere is evidence of something wonky going on in space, i.e. a rogue planet.

reply to post by luxordelphi


The size of the object in the photos (i.e., evidence) clearly indicates that if the Sun was not present, it would be visible to the naked eye. Look at the comparative sizes between the object and the Sun...quarter the size of the maybe? Now, let us look at an object the size of Jupiter...can you see Jupiter with a naked eye? Sure you can...and what is the comparative size of Jupiter and the Sun in the sky? Jupiter appears much smaller in the sky than this object...as a matter of fact, when you get a chance, try and take a photo of Jupiter in the night sky, without any telescopic lens and post it here...we will see what it looks like, if anything...and

If the Sun was not there in the photos, you would be able to see that object quite clearly with the naked eye...except...of course, it is not an object and that is the point...if there was an object then every astronomer on the planet would report it...an object of that size and in that close a proximity to the Sun would be visible everywhere the Sun could be Sun on the Earth on that date...plain, pure, and simple...it is a lens flare...

reply to post by ColAngus


I saw the thread on the boat moon - what was evident to me was that a lot of people who did not know anything about the phenomena did not actually understand what it was, and apparently refused to accept that it was something natural, if unusual.

reply to post by Phage


As usual, I learn something from you. The first link you quote is compelling because it is an actual study. It's from 2006 and very well thought out. Two items strike me...the visibility of the red dwarfs (dwarves?) and the proofs that while binaries and trinaries etc. of 'normal' stars are common at formation, over time, the lone red dwarf prevails. This is interesting, even fascinating and I thank you for this link.

I'm just going to quote from the last link you gave because it is charming:

www.redorbit.com...

Astronomers have long known that massive, bright stars, including stars like the sun, are most often found to be in multiple star systems. This fact led to the notion that most stars in the universe are multiples.

However, more recent studies targeted at low-mass stars have found that these fainter objects rarely occur in multiple systems. Astronomers have known for some time that such low-mass stars, also known as red dwarfs or M stars, are considerably more abundant in space than high-mass stars.

Among very massive stars, known as O- and B-type stars, 80 percent of the systems are thought to be multiple, but these very bright stars are exceedingly rare. Slightly more than half of all the fainter, sun-like stars are multiples. However, only about 25 percent of red dwarf stars have companions.

And I'll just add my own reading to the discussion starting with this article from 2011:

www.zmescience.com...

Well, binary star systems are not really only in Star Wars, they’re quite common throughout the galaxy, but as it turns out, trinary systems might not be that rare either.

The red giant in case is orbited by two smaller, red dwarf stars that also orbit each other, and astroseismologists are baffled by it.

And also from 2011:

universe-earth.blogspot.com...

Astronomers have discovered that small faint red dwarf stars in the universe has many more than previously thought, which means that the total number of stars is almost three times higher than previously estimated.

Therefore, these stars emit mostly infrared light.

And this story also from 2011:

www.iampleasant.com...

Though the number of extrasolar planets continued to grow over the years, exoplanet researchers were sceptical about existence of planets around multiple star systems since it was suspected that if the stars are not sufficiently farther apart, the constantly varying gravitational force would eventually tug the planet out of orbit. However, recent discoveries of planets in such star systems have proven this hypothesis otherwise.

Planetary scientists last week announced the discovery of a new planet in the HD 132563 trinary star system in the constellation Auriga after a 10-year long study of the system which also made several other discoveries.

The main star of the system called HD 132563A is itself a binary star making it a trinary star system.

This discovery brings the total number of planets discovered in multiple star systems to eight. Though the number is small, it seems planets can be commonly found orbiting around more remote members of trinary star systems for good periods of time.

The team has suggested that based on these eight discoveries, it is possible that the occurrence of planets on remote members of multiple star systems may be just as common as planets around wide binaries or even single stars.

So, again, thank you Phage for this very interesting paper and the corrections it makes to our thinking and also please take the ongoing discoveries I have offered in the same spirit of an evolving understanding.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Thank you for explaining that. I see. The planets of the solar system, including earth, have been afflicted with global warming. This is an effect. There is a list of four outstanding anomalies and Planet X is sought as an explanation to at least one. These are effects. Effects are related to distance and mass. Meaning how strong or weak the effects are. Looking for a binary is a perfectly acceptable pursuit in order to explain effects.

The scope of this thread, although residing in the highly speculative 'Skunk Works' is not really to explore my personal observations of effects. Still I will say that a binary is not something to hide under the covers over. And I think you're completely wrong in thinking that there is no chance of a binary for us. But I appreciate your input.

news.softpedia.com...

Once again, it seems that whatever the imagination of human beings can create, the Universe will match it. Remember the suns of Tatooine, the home planet of Luke Skywalker from "Star Wars"? Well, it seems that something similar really exists out there, and a scientist from Earth has discovered it.

www.viewzone.com...

The close proximity of stars to each other upon formation clearly involves a high probability for gravitational binding, assuming that astral formations aren't directly driven by binary interactions (which could very well be the case). Intellectually this establishes the basis for a dual-star interaction within our Solar System. It is generally presumed that the Sun is a unique exception to this commonly observed phenomenon, however, observational evidence suggests that the Sun is moving in a defined orbit around a companion system of stars.

Is the idea of a solar companion to our Sun unprecedented? Not at all, in fact there have been numerous scientific publications examining the evidence for a "dark star", literally speaking, to which our Sun could be gravitationally bound in a definite orbit [3]. This alternate dark star is known as Nemesis, and its proposition comes primarily from observed perturbations of orbiting objects such as the planet-sized Kuiper belt object named Sedna

This last link hypothesizes that precession itself is evidence for a binary.

Originally posted by luxordelphi
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Thank you for explaining that. I see. The planets of the solar system, including earth, have been afflicted with global warming. This is an effect.

Of a 2nd sun?? How??

There is a list of four outstanding anomalies and Planet X is sought as an explanation to at least one.

I think you mentioned this before - or someone did - but did not actually explain what these anomalies are - where is the list please?

These are effects. Effects are related to distance and mass. Meaning how strong or weak the effects are. Looking for a binary is a perfectly acceptable pursuit in order to explain effects.

Only if it makes sense. The gravitational effects of a binary 21nd star would affect EVERY orbit in hte solar system - not just 1 or 2 bodies.

www.viewzone.com...

The close proximity of stars to each other upon formation clearly involves a high probability for gravitational binding, assuming that astral formations aren't directly driven by binary interactions (which could very well be the case). Intellectually this establishes the basis for a dual-star interaction within our Solar System. It is generally presumed that the Sun is a unique exception to this commonly observed phenomenon, however, observational evidence suggests that the Sun is moving in a defined orbit around a companion system of stars.

How is this evidence for a binary??

The "intellectual basis" established by this article is nothing more than 2 stars having a gravitational effect on each other - which of course they do - nothing to do with the sun being a binary.

It says that he sun is moving around as part of a group of gravitationally linked stars - a "companion system" - like a small cluster - so again nothing to do with the sun being a binary at all.

Is the idea of a solar companion to our Sun unprecedented? Not at all, in fact there have been numerous scientific publications examining the evidence for a "dark star", literally speaking, to which our Sun could be gravitationally bound in a definite orbit [3]. This alternate dark star is known as Nemesis, and its proposition comes primarily from observed perturbations of orbiting objects such as the planet-sized Kuiper belt object named Sedna

This last link hypothesizes that precession itself is evidence for a binary.

Not really - it hypothesizes it as evidence the sun is rotating around Sirius - which is 8.6 light years away. However Lunisolar Precession seems to be well understood without need for Sirius

Again - gravity is not selective - if there was a gravitational effect it would affect the orbit of every single body in the solar system - not just a Kuiper belt or inner Oort Cloud object.

The premis of this article you have quoted is that the sun is rotating around Sirius - a binary star system 8.6 light years away - and it doesn't actually establish that as a factual position.

Are you suggesting that Sirius is the sun's partner in a triple system?

All the mentions of perturbation of Sedna involve some unknown body "kicking" it out of the Oort cloud into it's currently highly eccentric orbit, and the basis for them is something of planetary size - not a 2nd star for our sun.

There are certainly unknown bodies "out there" - but if there was another star we'd know it from its gravitational effects - not global warming!

reply to post by jeichelberg


Maybe it's lens flare. Chances are pretty good. But maybe it's not. It would be helpful if the photographer had specified whether any of the images posted were taken by the other camera. And no, you can't see Jupiter with the naked eye if he's behind the sun or too close to the sun. The suns' glare cancels out a lot of stuff. And no, you don't know what light band it's viewable in - maybe it's one that isn't humanly perceptible. And a lot of photo/video/sky watching enthusiasts are reporting 'it' and posting on the web and have been for years. And anybody who puts their credentials out on the boulevard and posts photos and says anything about 'it' immediately receives a dedicated smear campaign and who needs that. And there's a pandemic of lens flare, halo, sun dogs, artifacts, optical illusions and assorted other rare but common, unusual but every day sightings. And there are the usual snake oil enthusiasts cashing in, muddying the waters. And there is the deliberate effort to post and debunk obvious fakes and try to carry that over to mean that all are fakes. And just because we don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And from the ground, looking up, when I can actually see anything, I've got to say, Houston, there's trouble in River City and maybe this is a picture of it. Why just tonight the moon is almost directly overhead in Las Vegas. And we all know that's impossible . So chill and look up. We may be too far north to see 'it' but we can still see the effects.