Is our Solar System a Binary Star System?

Try reading from "Planetary orbits," about a third of the way down.

In fact, if you take the time to READ the Wikipedia entry you linked to (which you obviously did not) you'll see that it mentions that the foci for a nearly-matched pair of masses is the common barycenter.

I'm gonna expand, because this is just stupid. An elliptical form is the natural form of an orbit.

For simplicity, let's assume M1 is much larger than M2; enough so that for all practical purposes we can toss out the second half of the two-body problem. This is the state of affairs when, say, a spacecraft orbits the Earth; the amount the Earth is perturbed by the spacecraft is too small to measure.

Following launch the spacecraft will be in an elliptical orbit. It requires a circularizing burn. At that point -- from a circular orbit -- any added moment will create an ellipse.

Let's look at this in greater detail. Say a spacecraft is in circular orbit around Earth. Say it commits to a single burn in the direction of flight, increasing it's velocity by one kps. The spacecraft will describe a longer arc out, away from Earth, and then return; to the same place it started from. The orbit is elliptical. One foci remains the mass it is orbiting around; the other is a mathematical construct.

(It may help you to visualize if you understand that a diagonal slice through a cone is geometrically identical to an ellipse constructed from two foci. And yet a cone has but a single center line.)

This can be demonstrated in any system that mimics the inverse-square attraction of gravity; with magnets, with funnel-shaped devices for rolling balls into, with computer simulations.

Can you explain in your own words why it is cold? What happened to the heat of gravitational contraction? Is the object exceptionally old?

Can you explain why it has such a low albedo?

And can you explain why, if it is larger in diameter than Jupiter and comes to nearly as close, it has never been observed occulting any star?

Wait a moment. I was so thrown by the stupidity of the idea that two physical foci were required, I didn't even look at the nature of what you were proposing. Mea Culpa.

Assume for a moment you are correct; that elliptical orbits (which all planets in our solar system have) require a pair of masses, one at each foci.

Assume this nibble-you phantom body is at 30 AU or better from our primary.

Now look again at the geometric rules for constructing an ellipse.

DO YOU SEE THE PROBLEM?

(Hint...Earth orbits at only ONE AU from the Sun).


Oh, and p.s. -- the orbits of all moons in the solar system are also elliptical. I guess that means there are two Jupiters, two Mars, etc?

OK, it's late, and I want to let you know I'm interested in pursuing this, but I will abbreviate this post as I need to get some sleep.

NO, I'm NOT saying there are two Jupiters, etc...

Circular orbits ARE known in the observable universe, we have only recently been finding planets around other stars and HAVE observed circular orbits in a few of them.

What I'm inclined to think in the body of research out there, is that for this to be true, it is probably one body orbiting one star. The presence of elliptical orbits I tend to believe are the product of binary systems where in fact two foci exist.

As far as in my "own words" the GP-8 probe discovered an "object" out there with a temp of something approaching absolute zero. This COULD be an old DEAD brown dwarf, etc...

As far as not occulting other stars, it's an awful big sky out there, and perhaps it HAS, but wasn't OBSERVED doing it. I submit it is pretentious for us to rule out this possibility, assuming our knowledge is the "end all, be all."

Yes, the orbits of moons are elliptical... Suppose that is because the planet they orbit is a foci, and since the SUN is out there also, that THEIR orbits would be so perturbed?

Last Edited by Dream Killer on 01/04/2010 01:50 AM

Only sorta. I can't think of a perfectly circular orbit in our own solar system -- but there are a few of which the measured eccentricity is very low.

Err, let me amend that. The particles making up Saturn's Rings have almost perfectly circular orbits, because otherwise they collide. However, there are still twists and kinks out of plane when passing objects interfere.



The problem is, there are almost no stable orbits close to a widely separated binary. What happens in the real world, is a complex orbit that decays rapidly and ends up with an ejection. That's why many binary systems are not good targets for Earthlike planets; the area of long-term orbital stability does not coincide with the habitable zone of that star.

As a rule of thumb, you have two forms of stable orbits in a binary system (that is, for a small body weighing a fraction of either of the primaries). One is very far out; the object orbits about the common barycenter and the mass fluctuation due to the central point not being a discrete source is leavened by distance.

(Okay, that takes a bit of explanation. Why are there no lunar modules currently orbiting the Moon? Because of lunar mascons. The Moon has an uneven gravity field. From high up, it isn't a problem. From a low orbit, such as that the lunar module ascent stages were placed in, even tiny changes in local gravity are enough to throw the orbit off and eventually cause the spacecraft to crash).

The second form of stability is very close in about one of the two primaries. This requires, again, that the second body be far enough away so as not to be a significant perturbation.

If you run one of the various available solar system simulators (there's a nice one or two in java that can run in your browser, even), you notice that with an inner planet orbit too close to a massive outer planet body, the inner planet eventually experiences failure of orbit, usually leading to ejection.

As it happens, the most spectacular (aka easily observable) binaries out there are close binaries. Partially this is because we observe stars that have entered the red giant phase quite well. These pairs, as they lose mass, spiral closer and closer, until in some cases you get what are called contact binaries; in which the photosphere of the stars is actually in contact.

In many cases, one star goes giant first, andduhs gas across to the other, resulting in spectacular explosions, and a rapidly rotating x-ray source.....but anyhow! The take-home here is that many of the observed binaries are absolutely lousy places to try to get a stable orbit.

Really, you should try one of those java programs. Mess around a little, create some systems. You'll see that sticking large masses around doesn't lead to nice ellipses. It leads to orbital chaos.





I'm not familiar enough with the observation -- I think I would want a primary reference. Science is conservative that way. If we want to add cold giant planets to our zoo, we are willing to wait until significant and agreeing observations are made, and until the theories are properly amended to describe them.

Science doesn't ignore possiblities -- but what they don't do is embrace everything regardless of how flimsy the evidence may be. That way lies only uncertainty; if you have weak reason to believe everything, you have strong reason to believe nothing. No theory can be trusted, then, and we might as well give up any effort to understand the cosmos. That's why it is better to work methodically. If there is an unusual new idea, it has to fight for acceptance.

But, after all, ALL of astronomy was once new. From heliocentrism to universal gravitation to the big bang to relativity, all the basic ideas of astronomy have had to fight for acceptance against what appears to the untrained to be true and what was accepted for a time to be true.

Short Footnote:

Excerpted from:

[link to www.space.com]

'Humble and perplexed'

The researchers looked at five deep-space probes — Galileo to Jupiter, the NEAR mission to the asteroid Eros, the Rosetta probe to a comet, Cassini to Saturn, and the MESSENGER craft to Mercury. Each spacecraft flew past the our planet to either gain or lose orbital energy in their quests to reach their eventual targets. (Galileo made two flybys.)

In five of the six flybys, the scientists have confirmed anomalies.

"I am feeling both humble and perplexed by this," said Anderson, who is now working as a retiree. "There is something very strange going on with spacecraft motions. We have no convincing explanation for either the Pioneer anomaly or the flyby anomaly."

As long as you hold that a third force is required to "explain" an elliptical orbit I'm going to have a hard time trusting your judgment on anything resembling astronomy.

Very few of the sources you linked are primary sources, I'm afraid. I suspect that if I check the actual observations on those primary sources, I'll find they aren't describing the same core observations/events/objects. I suspect this is merely a mish-mosh of anything that appears to relate to a phantom planet of undescribed properties (and generally un-astronomical behavior).

But at least you are trying to make sense of it. That's more than a lot do. This forum, in particular, seems to be home to many conspiracy theorists who mistrust any observation, and prefer to sit in the dark and make up things.

That is EXACTLY the premise I put forth earlier in this thread, I AM trying to make sense out of the hodge podge of information/DISinformation out there. I am not a professional astronomer, but have enjoyed it as an amateur hobby for some years now. My knowledge of Celestial Mechanics is NOT on a doctorate level nor is my knowledge of physics, while I have working knowledge of many of the precepts.

I was primarily a Chem student, with Math and Languages as minors...

The SOHO stuff IS direct primary data, I will also place more on this thread...

I appreciate the discourse...

Forgot to login....

That is EXACTLY the premise I put forth earlier in this thread, I AM trying to make sense out of the hodge podge of information/DISinformation out there. I am not a professional astronomer, but have enjoyed it as an amateur hobby for some years now. My knowledge of Celestial Mechanics is NOT on a doctorate level nor is my knowledge of physics, while I have working knowledge of many of the precepts.

I was primarily a Chem student, with Math and Languages as minors...

The SOHO stuff IS direct primary data, I will also place more on this thread...

I appreciate the discourse...

I might also add, the JPL info is also "primary" as are other references in this thread...

Last Edited by Dream Killer on 01/04/2010 08:17 AM

Follow up on the "Cold Planet"

The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so cold it casts no light and has never been seen by optical telescopes on Earth or in space, is that it is a giant gaseous planet, as large as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 billion miles. While that may seem like a great distance in earthbound terms, it is a stone's throw in cosmological terms, so close in fact that it would be the nearest heavenly body to Earth beyond the outermost planet Pluto. "If it is really that close, it would be a part of our solar system," said Dr. James Houck of Cornell University's Center for Radio Physics and Space Research and a member of the IRAS science team. "If it is that close, I don't know how the world's planetary scientists would even begin to classify it."

The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it scanned the northern sky from last January to November, when the satellite ran out of the supercold helium that allowed its telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second observation took place six months after the first and suggested the mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky near the western edge of the constellation Orion in that time. "This suggests it's not a comet because a comet would not be as large as the one we've observed and a comet would probably have moved," Houck said. "A planet may have moved if it were as close as 50 billion miles but it could still be a more distant planet and not have moved in six months time.

This is an excerpt from CalTech, I would assume this is considered a "primary" reference site...

[link to spider.ipac.caltech.edu]

as far as I know, we are but not with a brown dwarf, we have an actual sun that we will see in a few years

Can you offer a link to this information? I've been searching for undeniable proof of the cause of all of these anomalies that, so far, no one can say what the cause of them is.

Could you elaborate?

Dig the link.


[link to web.comhem.se]

Particularly this graphic:

[link to web.comhem.se]


The 3600 year orbit is in 2 cycles.
Note in the illustration, the small loop inside the large loop. the large loop represents aprox. 2700-2800 yrs, the small loop represents 900-1000 yrs.

Note the shape of the small loop, the inspriation for the Ankh, of which the biblical "cross" is an abbrivation. This is the 1000 yrs of peace spoken of in many ancient writings.

This is when the Anunnaki hang out on earth for 900-1000 yrs untill their "star" swings back thru to pick them up again for the long trip out.

Last Edited by Tantalus on 01/05/2010 03:54 AM

I would LOVE to see anyone actually construct that wacked-out orbit in a simulator.

You know there are java-based gravitational simulators on line, right? Where you can create worlds, assign masses and starting velocities, and then run the simulation? I've spent a few pleasant hours playing with one or two myself.

I can tell you right now...that orbit is impossible if only the primary is gravitationally involved. The only way close to it is if you have some massive object also orbiting the primary, and at a resonance period. An unlikely condition to appear randomly; you'd practically have to build it intentionally, and even then I'd doubt the long-term stability.

I've only begun to study the material on the links you present, but I find it compelling! It makes sense in an intuitive way I cannot avoid.

Assuming that there are PAIRS of spiraling systems at two separate "centers" THAT would completely explain the ellipses within our system AND the perturbations that so far, have yet to be scientifically explained. It would also explain how BOTH systems remain "stable" due to their somewhat potentially equivalent masses at each end of a celestial "fulcrum." Considering our shallow understanding of the dynamics of the universe, I find this material COMPLETELY plausible so far...

Will post regarding this again after I've completed examining it.

THANKS FOR THIS!

Come back soon!

Last Edited by Dream Killer on 01/05/2010 09:16 AM

In view of the recent series of STRONG earthquakes, coinciding with the earth passing through the third node ring of magnetic force from WHATEVER object it is that's "out there" THIS is ANOTHER large EQ that JUST HAPPENED!

This occurred less than 24 hours ago as of the time of this post:

At least one village in the Solomon Islands has been destroyed by a series of powerful earthquakes that struck the archipelago yesterday, churning up a tsunami that reached a height of 10ft (3m).

As rescue workers reached the remote islands at the epicentre of the earthquakes, they reported that most of the inhabitants had escaped serious injury although dozens of houses were flattened by the tremors and aftershocks, the strongest of which measured 7.2 on the Richter scale

One earthquake sent a tsunami crashing into the shores of Rendova Island and nearby Tetepare Island at about 9.30 am local time. Eight other quakes greater than magnitude 5.0 have struck the region since.

Loti Yates, a disaster management official, said that at least 16 houses were destroyed and 32 damaged in Baniata village on Rendova, where about 3,600 people live.

The REST of this story can be found here:

[link to www.timesonline.co.uk]

Last Edited by Dream Killer on 01/05/2010 10:10 AM

Companion Article detailing a SERIES of nearly 20 ft. high Tsunamis

At least 13 people have been killed and more are feared dead in the western Solomon Islands after a tsunami crashed ashore, washing away entire villages and causing mass destruction in a low-lying area known for its crystal-clear waters and ample diving opportunities.

The giant waves - described by witnesses as up to five metres high – were triggered by a massive undersea earthquake in the region, which set off an alert from Australia to Hawaii and saw the speedy evacuation of schools and beaches across Pacific coastlines amid fears of a repeat of the 2004 tsunami. In northern Australia, roads were jam-packed as resident fled the shore to higher ground.

The rest of this story can be found here:

[link to www.timesonline.co.uk]

This is making MORE AND MORE sense... Not only does this information solve the anomalies of the perturbations, but also the increase in the "fireballs" the appearance of the Norway Spiral, AND the earthquakes...

I LIKE the acquiescence of your post suggesting that this would have to be "BUILT INTENTIONALLY."

After ALL, isn't that the very DEFINITION of a "Creator?"

Further, I also like your acceptance to the idea that there is MORE than gravity involved.. Until we SOLVE the "Unified Field Theory" we are ALL stumbling around at half mast, with JUST ENOUGH INFORMATION to get into trouble...

Last Edited by Dream Killer on 01/05/2010 10:53 AM

Ahh, but the magnetic influances, where are those in this modeling software, because that is how elliptical orbits form. A rotating fluctuation between gravity and magnetism (however, this "Rotating Fluctuation" must be in a specific frequency in order to maintain sustained balance). One supplies the push, the other the pull, and voila, you have an ellipse.

Last Edited by Tantalus on 01/05/2010 02:55 PM

Thread: Fractal Geometry, Nibiru, the Anunnaki, Humans, Gravity and Time

What the BRI does not discuss is the tremendous diverse possibilities of binary orbits, or, how if the stars are in extreem mass differentiation, the ellipse is more eccentric, and the "barrycenter" is closer to the star with more mass. In earths case, the barrycenter may even almost be somewhere around earths or mars orbit distance from the sun. This is good because it makes it extreemely unlikely that this star will ever hit earth, but it could come close enough to do damage.

And please also understand, that there are certain time dilation effects that occur when this star gets to extreem distances from the sun that allow it to release its kenetic energy at a much slower rate over a much longer time. Also remember, visable light is also a release of kenetic energy. Ha ha ha ha ha ...............

Last Edited by Tantalus on 01/05/2010 03:43 PM

No, ellipses are not the result of magnetic influences!

It's math, basic math. You set up an inverse-square field, and you can construct stable elliptical obits about it.

I know, I know...you look from the outside, and it seems as if the body in the elliptical orbit is gaining and losing energy...and you look around for where it is coming from.

But it isn't. The kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy always add up, at every step of the orbit. Kepler pointed this out, in his three laws.

As Earth, say, reaches perihelion, it has been falling inwards towards the Sun. It has reached the maximum velocity it reaches in its orbit. It swings around the Sun with too much velocity to remain at that location; so it hurls out, moving further away. As it moves further and further from the Sun, the gravitational attraction clawing at it makes it move slower and slower; finally, at apehelion, it begins to fall back again; it has reached a point where it is moving too slowly for the position it is in and it is drawn back towards the Sun. And the process repeats.

Elliptical orbits are the norm, and they do not require multiple bodies, or magnets. And the mechanics can be worked out from first principles, mathematically. And it can be observed in simple physical systems. Go to any science museum, and they'll probably have one of those coin-rolling machines. Build your elliptical orbit there (the friction of rolling coin and funnel means it won't last very long, though).

I didn't say that. Although I did say that the fantasy orbit shown is probably impossible with the forces we know.

But that's a bit like seeing a talking snake. When it is pointed out that (besides not normally being known for talking) a snake lacks a larynx and thus is physically incapable of forming vowel sounds, the logical response is not "See, that proves I saw a magical talking snake!"

Instead, this ridiculous orbit makes it more likely the people who drew it didn't know what they were doing.

Perhaps circular orbits are the norm, and because of gravitational time dilation, when a circular orbit is viewed from anywhere other than the center of gravity, it looks elliptical, the further from the center of gravity, the more dramatic this effect.

Im not saying this is ALWAYS the case, but you seem to be saying your theory is always the case.

There are a wide range of elliptical orbit types, with a number of forces influancing the patterns. In the case of the potential of our binary solar system, the orbit would have to be too eccentric to have only gravity as its path guide, it would need magnetic repulsion to keep from crashing thru the center of gravity.

However, lines of magnetic force DO exert influences against gravity "waves" as this is shown quite easily with the repelling of magnets from one an another, or TO one another..

Who's to say that you can summarily rule OUT the influence of magentic forces regarding gravity, or say that there IS no link or effect on ellipses, or anything else for that matter? Perhaps that's the very reason WHY the "math" works out...

We, as humans are pretty good at "pattern recognition" and I submit that recognizing these "patterns" that one could form relationships between these forces and be able to express them mathematically without even realizing that there are other things at work (i.e. MAGNETISM)

Last Edited by Dream Killer on 01/05/2010 04:19 PM