14 votes

Is our sun part of a binary star system?

I was debating between sticking this in the "weird stuff" category or the science and technology category, but I went with science and technology.

I'll start by putting this link here:
http://www.sott.net/article/230480-Is-the-Sun-Part-of-a-Bina...

It is also worth noting that I am by no means an astronomer, physicist, or anything of the like. I was hoping that maybe some Daily Paul-ians had looked into this a bit and could comment.

The general idea seems to be that the precession of the equinox and the movement of constellations relative to the axis of the earth suggests either that the earth wobbles on its axis or that there is a second star that influences our own sun's movements. Clearly, we would see a second sun in the sky if it were that kind of star, but some people suggest that a brown dwarf star (quite common apparently) that has a large elliptical orbit would be difficult to detect if currently far away from the sun.

There's an entire theory about this dwarf star called the Nemesis theory. Part of is that the earth has experienced fairly regular cataclysmic extinction events on a consistent interval of 26 million years. The way that the two stars orbit each other might account for this as the brown dwarf travels through a large area of space debris that surrounds our solar system, pulling in a trail of comet type bodies with it, which then impact the various planets closer to the sun.

This may or may not have anything to do with Niburu or Wormwood ideas, but it is interesting that perhaps there is more out there in our solar system than we know about.

For example, Sedna definitely exists, a small planet-like body roughly 3 times further out from our sun than Pluto. It was discovered less than ten years ago. See this link for more info: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/16...

Thoughts? Comments?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wow. That is way more of a

Wow. That is way more of a response than I was expecting. Anyways, I thought it was interesting food for thought, even if there's nothing to it. I'll have to check out some of the links you guys posted.

michcrow's picture

Incidently

Incidently I think it is possible to win 5 to 10 thousand dollars if you can write an essay proposing what this possible star may be.

Two shorten the road.

Nope

Our sun is not part of a binary system. An extremely precise observation that Newtonian physics can not explain, is the observed precession of Mercury: 574.10±0.65 arc-seconds per century. Einstein's relativity can explain the observation using the curvature of space-time. Such a fine measurement of orbital physics in the solar sytem, as to verify Einstein's space-time calculations over Newton's gravitational model, would recognize a solar companion, because the sun, and all of the planets, would move perceptibly under its influence. We do not live in a binary system.

michcrow's picture

A Good Book on the Subject

You could read the book 'The Lost Star of Myth and Time' by Walter Cruttenden. This books lays out the basics behind the binary star system. But there is still mystery as to why it hasn't been observed yet. But there must be something that hasn't been accounted for yet.

Two shorten the road.

This is all too complicated for my little brain...

I have found this explanation much easier to grasp...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

Living organism

This is what the theosophists think it is. Read it the other day in passing in a used book store.

donvino

Statistically, more observed stars are in binary systems ...

... than not.

So, if our star was not in some orbital motion with another star that would be an exception to the rule. Not the other way around.

I started reading that article thinking this is BS

I started reading that article thinking this is BS.

But, as I read it makes sense that we could be on a longitudinal (relative to the galaxy) very weakly interacting orbit with another star...

this would help explain the up down motion they keep saying is responsible for the 26MY cycles in comet strikes.

but again I would like to see the evident star which shouldn't be too hard to spot with the right criterion.

Tools of war are not always obvious. The worst weapon is an idea planted in the mind of man. Prejudices can kill, suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has an everlasting fallout all of its own.

Joη's picture

the up-down motion is an after-effect of galaxy accretion

Breaking down masses' gravitational forces into orthogonal components (x,y,z) helps visualize that there's always a component perpendicular to the planar disk centered on the system's center of mass, since no mass is "perfectly" on that disk. An orbiting mass is always above or below the center of mass, so it will always be pulled up or down, overshoot the center, and repeat, much like a pendulum. Except there's much less air resistance in space to stop it over time.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

that assumes gravity is related to mass.

if our sun really is made of Plasma then Plasma can generate gravity.

how "mass" creates or exerts gravity is still an open question. the Higgs-Boson is our best guess that I know of. and we have been beating that horse for over 30 some odd years now.
peace.

Joη's picture

spoiler: gravity is related to mass

all observation suggests so and no observation suggests otherwise.

Plasma is an excited gas, and a gas is still made of mass.

The question addressed was "why smaller galaxies orbit larger ones on circumferential sinusoids" to which the answer is "gravity". "Why is gravity" is completely separate.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Plasma is a gas above it's critical pressure.

as the 4th state of matter there are still many unknowns.

Hubble forced Einstein to go back to the drawing board. the best he could come up with was the cosmological constant or Lambda.

he pulled it out of his azz to make the equations fit.

am I wrong in this observation?

Joη's picture

yes, you have it backwards

Had Einstein known about the data that supported Hubble's Law (that the Doppler-shift-measured velocities of galaxies receding from Earth are proportional to their distance from Earth and each other), he would not have added the cosmological constant.

And none of this is particularly relevant to the subject at hand.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

I may be considered Pseudoscience at this point...

But that's not to say that it isn't possible. I actually find it very plausable. Our solar system is in a helical orbit, meaning that our Sun travels through space with us in tow behind it. Is the Sun traveling around the center of our galaxy or is it another star? To speculate, it may be Sirius, OR it may be the central star in the constellation Pleaides, Alcyone.

I don't know the answers, but I wouldn't dismiss this (OR electric universe theory, for that matter) entirely either.

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Read this article with a grain of salt....

I'm not passing this article along trying to pass it off as facts... it just gives a little bit of context to my previous comment.

http://esoterism.ro/english/central-sun.php

My Political Awakening: I Wanted to Change the World...
I am NOT Anti-America. America is Anti-Me - Lowkey
How to Handle POLICE STATE Encounters

Joη's picture

No

The simplest argument is our solar system has too much evidence of being stable for billions of years to also have a highly elliptical, periodic drive-by fusionball that would gulp up anything planet sized in at least one of the hundreds of millions of passes it would have made by now.

The math-based argument involves orbital mechanics, perturbation theory, and the fact that given mass + position and velocity vectors of all massive bodies known in the Solar system, they all point to each other existing as we find them, and nowhere else. All gravitational tugs are accounted for. Were there a highly elliptical, periodic twin sun, all the locations would be drastically off.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

the cosmic comet cleanse..

at more frequent intervals.. sounds about right for this psychopathic chapter in our current civilization.

thank you for posting this, i really enjoyed dipping my toes in over at SOTT..
looks like some other interesting tidbits to explore are lurking in the side margins..

bookmarked and planning on visiting again.

I sincerely loved your link...

I have book marked it and will share.

BTW - that completely blows my theory out of the water - I always thought these guys had it right!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

"Liberty tastes sweetest to those who fight for it, and most bitter to those who work to deny it!"

LearnRonPaul

Actually the Pythons were pretty close.

That other stuff is more evidence that there's bugger-all down here on earth.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

The Second star is Saturn.

The Second star is Saturn. Checkout www.thunderbolts.info and learn about the electric universe.

yes!

interesting site and theory! I loved their film!

Arthur C. Clarke thought the

Arthur C. Clarke thought the second star was Jupiter. Interesting stuff...

You call that a debunk?

This is what I call a debunk:
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity and why black holes simply do not exist. Stephens Crothers breaks down einstein's equation of general relativity to show that it equals Zero.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/03/04/stephen-crothers-...

Watch part 2 as well.

Are you being funny? the

Are you being funny? the debunk wiki you directed me to was filled with adjectives such as crank, fringe, crackpot, loony with not a single cogentive reason why the sun is really not a diode conducting plasma. Brought me back to the good old times when RP was running for president and the latest nobody from a dinosaur media conglomerate was trying to convince their readers why RP could never win.

Joη's picture

I would hope there weren't any "cogentive" reasons

that not being a thing...

Glad we can agree there's nothing to take issue with in the first link, and that his points soundly refute whatever use the wide and shallow notion of an electric universe may provide.

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

Yeah you gotta forgive me on

Yeah you gotta forgive me on my typos, answering posts on an iphone while working night shift in the land of perpetual darkness is not easy.

No I just finished the

No I just finished the article and all the comments. The feedbackers do a good job destroying psygirl's hack job on EU. You should follow the conversation until the end.

Very interesting

I heard something about Sirius being the "2nd Sun". I believe it was a lecture by Santos Bonacci, aka Mr. Astrotheology. Cool stuff.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin