Our Suns Binary and Spiritual Second Sun (Coverup)

a reply to: purplemer

The evidence lies in the science itself. Orbital mechanics do not allow Sirius and Sol to be in orbit of each other. Gravitational attraction is not strong enough to bind them. But, if they were in orbit, the period would be more than 200 million years and the orbit would be unstable, considering the other stars within those 8.5 light years.

www.omnicalculator.com...

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: St Udio


How can you be in his camp he did not know what caused it. Some evidence to counter would be useful.

Issac Newton did not come up with a suitable theory as to what caused the wobble. The present theory constanlty neeeds updating as it cannot predict the the variance of change.

he Lunisolor Precession theory was originally developed before there was any formal knowledge of binary stars or their motions, and before there was any recognition that the solar system might be moving. While this theory is a good first attempt at explaining the observed phenomenon (within a static solar system), it relies on certain untested assumptions concerning the composition and stability of the earth’s core and the moon’s solidity, and has had to be modified a number of times over the years to get the calculation to fit the ever changing observable.

Most astronomers do not pay attention to precession theory and consider these changes to be minor tweaks but they are actually telltale signs of the problems with current theory.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

It is of important note here that we are talking about a cycle. The 24/26 orbit of Sirius explains the resason the earth wobbles in a cycle and also explains why the wobble is now speeding up.

Happy days.

wow BF's and that don't mean Bestus-Friends...I think I hear some Novelty Theory hyperbole oozing thru the 24/26 linkage you suggest

no Newton had not the info/data/theories we have now to determine what caused the process of precession...

it came from the early Earth collision with another celestral body about Mars size winging Earth and gouging out enough material for our oversize Moon to Form from the debris

the ~24 degree tilt of the Earth & the precession resulted from that collision that itself was Billions of years ago and continues to this day

BF translates to cranial flatulence or Brain F---s



that 'Spiritual 2nd Sun' hype is ********… the 'metaphysical Sun' is more in-line with the collective conscience than the pet theory of the Author you are supporting... Currethers or whatever...see my first reply from page 2 3rd post down for the name


thanks for the interaction,, me - i'm ready to NETFLIX the S2E5 of DARK right now.... see ya

a reply to: purplemer

There is no reason the relatively constant mass of the Sun and Moon torquing the Earth should produce such figures.

Precession varies because of the influences of other planets. Jupiter and Venus in particular. The fact that both the Moon's orbit and Earth's are not circular is also a factor.
astro.wsu.edu...

Please comment and let me know what you think it wrong with this theory.

I did. Sirius is too distant from Sol for them to be in orbit.

BTW, did you see Sirius directly overhead today? At what time?

a reply to: Phage

Orbital mechanics does not explain a lot of things in the universe that does not mean they do not occur. I have a lot evidence that will make you mechanisms look outdated. Would you like to see it. Would you care to suggest what is wrong with Comparing Yukteswar’s calcualations that model that 41 times more accurate than the lunisolar precession. Will you comment on this?

It no good just saying this is wrong when you are not providing anything to counter with.

a reply to: Phage

BTW, did you see Sirius directly overhead today? At what time?

If you had read my post earlier i explained this is due to the time zone calibration. Dice hairs all you want. That star has lined up every day for thousands of years and you cannot prove me wrong.

a reply to: Phage

Precession varies because of the influences of other planets. Jupiter and Venus in particular. The fact that both the Moon's orbit and Earth's are not circular is also a factor.

Sorry that is a messy and limiting theory. Explain to me how you model explains the variance in processional acceleration (something we are experiening at the moment). Have you looked at the factors involved its ludicrous they ave to keep changing the factors to make it work.

Personally I would rather stick to a theory that is actually proven to work.

a reply to: purplemer

Orbital mechanics does not explain a lot of things in the universe that does not mean they do not occur.

It explains how orbits work.

If you had read my post earlier i explained this is due to the time zone calibration

No. It has nothing to do with "time zone calibration." It has to do with your latitude and the Earth's rotation. There is only one general location and one time of day where Sirius will appear directly overhead on January 1st. And that time of day is in full daylight. No where on the planet will you see Sirius directly overhead on January 1st. And never will it "align" with Earth and the Sun.

a reply to: purplemer

Explain to me how you model explains the variance in processional acceleration (something we are experiening at the moment).

How much is precession accelerating? At the moment?

a reply to: Phage

Because it is changing it's position in the sky very slowly due to the combination of proper motion and precession.

No this star moves counter to precision and is holding its postition. People have been watching it for a period of time now and there is evidence to support this.

Comparing Yukteswar’s and Newcomb’s predictions to the actual we find the dynamic SS model to be 41 times more accurate than the lunisolar precession model over the last 100 years.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

What is wrong with a more accurate model?

a reply to: purplemer

No this star moves counter to precision and is holding its postition.

Its proper motion is close to the apparent movement which precession provides, however, it does move. With telescopes this can be determined, without them, not so much.

What is wrong with a more accurate model?

Prove that it's more accurate. In any case, a geocentric model can chart the movement of the stars and planets too, that does not mean it's a correct model. I'll take physics over a Swami, thank you.

The Sun and Sirius are too distant from each other to be gravitationally bound. But if they were, the period would be more than 200 million years, certainly not 24,000. You gave the distance yourself, right? We'd have to moving really, really fast to do it in 24,000 years.

Maybe there's magic involved? Maybe the spiritual density causes an attraction far greater than gravity.

a reply to: Phage

Prove that it's more accurate. In any case, a geocentric model can chart the movement of the stars and planets too, that does not mean it's a correct model. I'll take physics over a Swami, thank you.

The binary model expains the movement of both Sirius and the stars that proccess through the zodiac. I will at this point ask you what again what is wrong with the model provided by Swami. What was incorrect about the information for you to deem it not physics. You have not said suggesting a subjectiveness on your part which ignores the data.


You can go and read this stuff too you know. So when you said you take the physicist anytime over Swami (who evidenlty was a physctist too. It looks like you you bet on the wrong horse.
- not conf

The hundred year test (within the defined paramters) for before 1900

Newcomb: .000222 p/y
Yukteswar: .000349 p/y

Actual rate of change observable preccission 000.346

a reply to: Phage

OK instead of parroting the same stuff again and again. I will present some facts to you here that counter you.

There is muchos evidence.


The lunar cycle.

Reference Frames Under the current lunisolar theory of precession it is assumed that the earth goes around the sun 359 degree 59 minutes and 10 arc seconds in a Tropical year, the period from like equinox to like equinox, which is equal to 365.2422 rotations of the earth. This is true if you measure the position of the equinox relative to the fixed stars “outside” the solar system but it is not true if you measure the movement of the equinox relative to the sun or moon or other objects “within” the solar system, where the lunar data shows us that the earth goes around the sun a complete 360 degrees in a tropical year. Unfortunately, neither NASA VLBI nor any other official agency measures the earth’s orientation relative to nearby objects, so the paradox goes unnoticed.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

Angular Momentum


The most widely accepted explanation for how the solar system formed is the Nebular Hypothesis. In this theory, the whole Solar System starts as a large cloud of gas that contracts under self-gravity. Conservation of angular momentum requires that a rotating disk form with a large concentration at the center (the proto-Sun). The centifugal force balances the gravitational forces and the disk coagulates into planets. Most people accept this theory, but there is one big unresolved problem – the angular momentum should be proportional to mass (as every physics student knows) but it’s not in our solar system.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

Sheer edge
In April 2001, Discover Magazine reported that scientists from University of Michigan and University of Arizona found our solar system has a sheer edge meaning matter such as asteroids, ice and other objects of all sizes appears to abruptly end. A single sun system should have a very wide dispersal of matter getting smaller and smaller for billions of miles beyond the Kuiper Belt. To find that all matter seems to end just beyond this Kuiper Belt was unexpected. Among their conclusions, the reasearchers theorized that one possible cause of the sheer edge could be the gravitational influence of some as yet undetected large mass planet, that passed within close proximity to our system at some point in the past.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

Distribution of Comets

Another fact expected in a single sun system is that comets should come from all directions more or less randomly. But historical comet pattern data shows comet paths tend to be non-random. Fully 1/3 of 82 long cycle comets come from a narrow belt.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

binary Star Prevalence

There are many common misconceptions about binary star systems, one of the most common myths is that binary star systems are the cosmic oddity and that single star systems are the most prevalent, when, in fact, the opposite is true. 50 years ago binary stars were considered a rarity. Now, most of the stars in our galaxy are known to be paired with a companion or multiple partners.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

Ties With Milankovitch Cycles

The Milankovitch Cycles are the results of studying past global climate changes over millions of years. One of the causes in climate change is precession of the equinoxes, which seems to have a period of 22,000 to 23,000 years, over millions of years.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

Yes thers your 24k cycle again :-)

There is plenty more too. So instead of taking small swipes against a Tsunami of evidence. Respond and counter the above. If anything you have has any any soap I will pass it on to the experts to have a look at. I have not ignored your other answers I will get back to you.

But there is enough here for you to think about

Happy Sirius Day :-)

Do you find it curius that nasa name there missions after the same stars I am talkng about here..

a reply to: purplemer

Hi PM.
Thanks for this Siriusly good thread !

Worth a read peeps.

binaryresearchinstitute.com...

a reply to: Nothin

The plesure is mine.

Thank you too.

a reply to: DBCowboy
Probably because we are too dense for the truth.
But thus would explain how there have been numerous civilisations before us that have came and went. Possibly far more advanced than us until they reached their pinnacle and a great flood came and wiped them out for a recycle and start again.
It's ominous if we are entering aquarius because that is the water sign, and theres all this constant talk in politics and movies, conditioning that a storm is coming. Maybe when the time comes we graduate to Sirius.

a reply to: purplemer

So when you said you take the physicist anytime over Swami (who evidenlty was a physctist too)

Not that I can determine.

Actual rate of change observable preccission 000.346

Upon what did Yukteswar base his value?

a reply to: purplemer

Sorry. I don't respond to gish gallops.