Do we live in Binary Star System?

reply to post by tomten


i know that it can't be, what i should have wrote was

"when i have tried to disprove "nibiru" some people have tried to tell me that it is within 10 AU of us and its so cold that we can't see it"

i don't think nibiru exists and i don't think we have a companion star, even if we did if it can as close to the sun as people believe it does, the sun which is the larger of the two would end up over time cannabilizing the smaller companion until it was no more.

Contact Binaries: When two stars are close in separation it is possible for tidal forces to come into play. Since stars are not solid bodies, rather made of gases, then gravity can strip material and transfer it from one star to the other. Thus we say the binaries are in contact, even if their surfaces are not touching directly.

How stars exchange material is similar to the way a ball rounds over and down a hill. The ball must have enough kinetic energy to exceed the potential energy of the hill. Around two stars there are lines of equipotential. Imagine two nearby lakes. If the water rises it takes on the shape of the contours of the land, the equipotential contours. If the water level rises too high, the lakes merge

abyss.uoregon.edu...

reply to post by Razz123


The first Brown Dwarf found by WISE (The 1 that your NASA page talks about).
Is this one:

Cool Star is a Gem of a Find

WISE's new brown dwarf is named WISEPC J045853.90+643451.9 for its location in the sky. It is estimated to be 18 to 30 light-years away and is one of the coolest brown dwarfs known, with a temperature of about 600 Kelvin, or 620 degrees Fahrenheit. That's downright chilly as far as stars go. The fact that this brown dwarf jumped out of the data so easily and so quickly -- it was spotted 57 days into the survey mission -- indicates that WISE will discover many, many more. The discovery was confirmed by follow-up observations at the University of Virginia's Fan Mountain telescope, the Large Binocular Telescope in southeastern Arizona, and NASA's Infrared Telescope Facility on Mauna Kea, Hawaii. The results are in press at the Astrophysical Journal.

Originally posted by tomten

Originally posted by Razz123
CHECK OUT THIS LINK
NASA HAS NOW CONFIRMED FINDING A BROWN DWARF STAR BETWEEN THE BELT OF JUPITER AND MARS. READ BETWEEN THE LINES, IT IS OUT THERE. THIS NASA DOCUMENT WAS POSTED FEB 18TH

www.nasa.gov...

Nothing on that page, suggest any brown dwarf inside Jupiter's orbit.
They are not even looking there!
The text says they are looking in the Oort's cloud.

The ATS member that tried to sell me this stuff started This Thread about that document. He spent too much time reading between the lines I think lol. As I responded below....

Those results are preliminary. The full results wont be available till next year at the earliest. That video was the extended WISE mission you're referring too. I don't see any brown dwarf there. And you're looking in the wrong place. Current theories suggest this twin star (brown dwarf) or possible extra solar body is out in, or past, the Oort cloud. Far beyond the edge of the solar system. Read the science on Brown Dwarfs, then you will see why there isn't one in between Jupiter and the Earth. Oh, and it is expected that WISE will find many more Brown Dwarfs, which are suspected to be just as abundant as Red Dwarfs, the most common star in the galaxy. And yes I know what the topic is about, I created it. Did you read the OP? I am merely trying to counter your theory with solid evidence.

Brown Dwarf discovered by WISE

Ahemm....18-30 lightyears away.

Thanks to Acidtastic for finding the journal entry.

The journal entry was found by another ATS member who linked it on Razz's thread. Haven't heard from Razz since.

Originally posted by ATSecretAgent
Oh, and it is expected that WISE will find many more Brown Dwarfs, which are suspected to be just as abundant as Red Dwarfs, the most common star in the galaxy.

Yes, WISE have already found 20 Brown Dwarfs.

NASA WISE telescope

WISE has spied hundreds of potential brown dwarfs - stellar objects that are bigger than a planet but much smaller than a star - and confirmed the existence of 20 of them, including some of the coldest ever known.

reply to post by tomten


I'm looking forward to seeing the full results once they're published.

Well written. Point proved, great job not getting off topic with survival methods.

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by drakus

 

Yes, the chance of planets remaining in orbit.
Around one or both stars in a binary system, is small.

Here's one though..

Surprise Discovery: Two Planets, Two Stars, One System

Wow, thanks for that link. Amazing find! Things like this is why I love science...



Now, about some "ideas" that were raised on this thread, i believe that, as we already have (a lot of ) threads about the speculative theoring about the implications of a Companion/Weird planet, we could use this thread to accumulate scientific DATA about this subject.
I'm very ok with letting our minds fly, many things are discovered/realized that way, but if that creative thinking is not used where and when it IS useful and instead is used EVERYTIME, we may have a problem.

For example, and with all due respect:
There was a previous post suggesting that Comet Elenin could be, not a comet, but a huge planet. Now, I respect freedom of voice so I'd never try to shut him up, like others would do, but, if you stop and think about it, it doesn't make much of sense, does it? I mean, if you are seriously thinking about the subject you should USE what we know; a comet is an object with such and such properties and influences. And so is a Planet. Now, if you know what kind of influence a comet exerts on stable orbiting planets, and you know what kind of influence a very larger object would have. How can you reach to the previous conclusion?
Off course, if you were just being funny, none of the previous applies


Hmm, i'd like to stress that I'M COMPLETELY OK with releasing our minds from the limitations of our knowledge from time to time, it's even healthy and I do it regularly. I just feel that we are mixing the tools, you don't use a screwdriver to put a nail up on the wall...

Peace.
Drakus

Why don't we start with a basic astronomy lesson, so people understand what's possible and not?

For instance, the evolution and lifespan of stars and our solar system.

A solar system is formed by accretion and gravitational attraction. We begin with a big old cloud of stellar gas. Where does this come from you ask? From the deaths of stars. So when a star dies, it leaves behind a nebula of gas and dust. Usually, stars are born in clusters, and these 'stellar nurseries' are filled with stars and protostars. So not only when one of them dies do they toss off gas and dust, but the shock wave from the explosion impacts the existing dust/gas, pushing it into clumps. Gravity eventually does its job, pulling things together, larger and larger groupings, until you get a disk of such stuff, whirling about a center point, condensing into various larger and larger clumps as it does. I'm sort of paraphasing, and skipping things, but you get the picture.

We know that when things condense, they get hotter. Eventually we get enough pressure at the center for a nuclear reaction. By this time these clumps of matter are large enough to be called Planetesimals. Think of them like meteors, because that's what they are.

So now, we get things like solar winds happening, and the pressure of light pushing outwards, and these things begin to push the lighter, more fragile matter outwards or outright destroying it, leaving the more hardy, rocky stuff closer to the star.

An interesting thing to note: our sun is a third generation star, what they call a Population I star. This means that there were two other stars in this neighborhood before it. We know this because our star and this solar system has an abundance of higher elements, including iron. Metal rich means Population I. The carbon and everything else, the molecules in your body all came from dying stars. You are made of star dust.

Hummm...
I recently put together a lot of similar information in a thread, plus other information in other threads.

-----
There IS a large gravitational field from some unknown object, not our Sun, in our Solar System, but even scientists who are investigating this CAN'T FIND the source of this gravitational field.

One of the scientists investigating what is causing all the recently discovered anomalies in our Solar System is Prof. Lorenzo Iorio.

Sometime back in 2009 I discovered some of the research done by Prof. Lorenzo Iorio, and I posted this information in the following Link. It started as a thread about "Ultracool subdwarf stars", but as I kept researching I found the research which stated that three different group of scientists reported that recent secular increase in AU between our Sun and the planets in our Solar System.

Secular increase of the astronomical unit and perihelion precessions as tests of the Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati multi-dimensional braneworld scenario
Lorenzo Iorio JCAP09(2005)006 doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2005/09/006


PDF (313 KB) | HTML | References | Articles citing this article



Lorenzo Iorio
Viale Unità di Italia 68, 70125, Bari, Italy
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract. An unexpected secular increase of the astronomical unit, the length scale of the Solar System, has recently been reported by three different research groups (Krasinsky and Brumberg, Pitjeva, Standish). The latest JPL measurements amount to 7 ± 2 m cy−1. At present, there are no explanations able to accommodate such an observed phenomenon, either in the realm of classical physics or in the usual four-dimensional framework of the Einsteinian general relativity. The Dvali–Gabadadze–Porrati braneworld scenario, which is a multi-dimensional model of gravity aimed at providing an explanation of the observed cosmic acceleration without dark energy, predicts, among other things, a perihelion secular shift, due to Lue and Starkman, of 5 × 10−4 arcsec cy−1 for all the planets of the Solar System. It yields a variation of about 6 m cy−1 for the Earth–Sun distance which is compatible with the observed rate of change for the astronomical unit. The recently measured corrections to the secular motions of the perihelia of the inner planets of the Solar System are in agreement with the predicted value of the Lue–Starkman effect for Mercury, Mars and, at a slightly worse level, the Earth.

www.iop.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is affecting our Moon as well, asteroids, which are arriving days earlier than they are supposed to, and causing other anomalies such as redirecting the incoming cosmic microwave radiation which is even speculated to be caused by some "unknown gravitational source in our Solar system".

6 The increase of the Astronomical Unit

6.1 The observation

From the analysis of radiometric measurements of distances between the Earth and the major planets including observations from Martian orbiters and landers from 1961 to 2003 a secular increase of the Astronomical Unit of approximately 10 m/cy has been reported (36) (see also the article (37) and the discussion therein).

6.2 Search for explanation

Time–dependent gravitational constant and velocity of light This increase cannot be explained by a time–dependent gravitational constant G because the ˙ G/G needed is larger than the restrictions obtained from LLR.

It has also been speculated that a time–dependent change in the velocity of light can be responsible for this effect. Indeed, if the speed of light becomes smaller, than ranging will simulate a drift of distances. However, a inspection of Kepler’s third law
T2 4π2
a3 = GM⊙

(17)
12

shows that, if one replaces the distance a by a ranging time a = ct, then effectively the quotient G/c3 appears. Only this combination of the gravitational constant and the speed of light governs the ratio between the orbit time, in our case the orbit time of the Earth. Consequently, a time–dependent speed of light is equivalent to a time–dependent gravitational constant. Since the latter has been ruled out to be possibly responsible for an increase of the Astronomical Unit, also a time–dependent speed of light has to be ruled out.

Cosmic expansion The influence of cosmic expansion by many orders of magnitude too small, see Sec.9.2. Neither the modification of the gravitational field of the Sun nor the drag of the planetary orbits due to the expansion is big enough to explain this drift.

Clock drift An increase of ranged distances might also be due to a drift of the time scale of the form t → t + αt2 for α > 0. This is of the same form as the time drift needed to account for the Pioneer anomaly. From Kepler’s third law one may ask which α is suitable in order to simulate the increase of the Astronomical Unit. One obtains α ≈ 3 · 10−20 s−1 what is astonishing close to the clock drift needed for a clock drift simulation of the pioneer anomaly, see Eq.(16) and below.

7 The quadrupole and octupule anomaly Recently an anomalous behavior of the low–l contributions to the cosmic microwave background has been reported. It has been shown that (i) there exists an alignment between the quadrupole and octupole with > 99.87% C.L. [38], and (ii) that the quadrupole and octupole are aligned to Solar system ecliptic to > 99% C.L. [39]. No correlation with the galactic plane has been found.

The reason for this is totally unclear. One may speculate that an unknown gravitational field within the Solar system slightly redirects the incoming cosmic microwave radiation (in the similar way as a motion with a certain velocity with respect to the rest frame of the cosmological background redirects the cosmic background radiation and leads to modifications of the dipole and quadrupole parts). Such a redirection should be more pronounced for low–l components of the radiation. It should be possible to calculate the gravitational field needed for such a redirection and then to compare that with the observational data of the Solar system and the other observed anomalies.

..........................
8.2 Other anomalies?
There is one further observation which status is rather unclear bit which perhaps may fit into the other observations. This is the observation of the return time of comets: Comets usually come back a few days before they are expected when applying ordinary equations of motion. The delay usually is assigned to the outgassing of these objects. In fact, the delay is used for an estimate of the strength of this outgassing. On the other hand, it has been calculated in (44) that the assumption that starting with 20 AU there is an additional acceleration of the order of the Pioneer anomaly also leads to the effect that comets come back a few days earlier. It is not clear whether this is a serious indications but a further study of the trajectories of comets certainly is worthwhile.

arxiv.org...


Then there is other research that I also posted back in 2009, such as the following which adds up the fact that there is some large gravitational field, probably a failed/dead star, which causes the odd orbit of Sedna.

Evidence Mounts For Companion Star To Our Sun
by Staff Writers
Newport Beach CA (SPX) Apr 25, 2006
The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, Sedna, demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common center of mass.

Once thought to be highly unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way galaxy.

Walter Cruttenden at BRI, Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley, Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana, amongst several others, have long speculated on the possibility that our sun might have an as yet undiscovered companion. Most of the evidence has been statistical rather than physical.

The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what could be indirect physical evidence of a solar companion. Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves in a highly unusual elliptical orbit, Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star.

In the May 2006 issue of Discover, Dr. Brown stated: "Sedna shouldnt be there. Theres no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the sun, but it never goes far enough away from the sun to be affected by other stars... Sedna is stuck, frozen in place; there's no way to move it, basically there's no way to put it there – unless it formed there. But it's in a very elliptical orbit like that. It simply can't be there. There's no possible way - except it is. So how, then?"

"I'm thinking it was placed there in the earliest history of the solar system. I'm thinking it could have gotten there if there used to be stars a lot closer than they are now and those stars affected Sedna on the outer part of its orbit and then later on moved away. So I call Sedna a fossil record of the earliest solar system. Eventually, when other fossil records are found, Sedna will help tell us how the sun formed and the number of stars that were close to the sun when it formed."

www.spacedaily.com...

In here you can see the odd orbit of Sedna, and the fact that whatever Sedna is orbiting, is NOT far off into the Oort cloud, like some keep claiming.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e7a026f2e28d.png[/atsimg]

Not only that, but there is another research, also done by Prof. Lorenzo Ioro where he states that the only explanation for the anomalous secular increase of the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon would be a trans-Plutonian object, but in his opinion he says it is not possible because it would put an Earth size object at 30 AU, or a gas giant like Jupiter at 200 AU, which is very close, and we "should" be able to see.

Here is the part of this research where he states this, which another member found.

...
Within the Newtonian framework, we considered the action of a circular massive ring modeling the Edgeworth-Kuiper belt of Trans-Neptunian Objects, but it does not induce secular variations of e. In principle, a viable candidate would be a putative trans-Plutonian massive object (PlanetX/Nemesis/Tyche), recently revamped to accommodate certain features of the architecture of the Kuiper belt and of the distribution of the comets in the Oort cloud, since it would cause a non-vanishing long-term variation of the eccentricity.Actually, the values for its mass and distance needed to explain the empirically determined increase of the lunar eccentricity would be highly unrealistic and in contrast with the most recent viable theoretical scenarios for the existence of such a body. For example, a terrestrial-sized body should be located at just 30 au, while an object with the mass of Jupiter should be at 200 au.
...

arxiv.org...

This would put an Earth size object right on Neptune's orbit which is at around 30 AU. But of course this would be impossible since any amateur astronomer should be able to see it almost as easy as Neptune can be seen with an amateur telescope.

Now, meanwhile a gas giant at 200 AU should be seen, you would need a telescope with a large aperture. But the thing is, what if it is not just a simple gas giant? what if it is a failed/dead star within 200-300 AU? or it could be farther away, but still within the Solar System.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a847921652b4.png[/atsimg]

So essentially Prof. Lorenzo Iorio is dumping what the facts seem to be pointing out simply because like many other astronomers he puts his preconcieved conceptions before what the evidence seems to be telling him.

My question is, if the scientists who are investigating this can't find exactly where, or what it is, and the evidence they found tells them there is some object exerting a large gravitational pull on all planets, as well as our Moon, and all asteroids, what makes you think that the one you contacted, who doesn't even want to entertain the possibility of such an object existing, will find this object?

I could be wrong, and there could be someone who knows where this is, and what it is, but so far I haven't seen any evidence of anyone knowing where it is.
-------
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Some other threads pertaining to this subject.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the following thread I began to investigate ultracoll subdwarfs, and ended up finding research that said something with a large gravitational pull within the Solar System is affecting every planet, moon, and comet in our Solar System.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Some other threads with similar info.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have not read the foregoing pages so if my link has been posted already sorry.......

PERSISTENT EVIDENCE of a "Jovian" mass Solar companion.....Read, 'JUPITER' mass or thereabouts...


adsabs.harvard.edu...


READ THE ABSTRACT !!!

Please forgive this post.. It seems that you must post 20 times before you can start
your own thread... So, I apoligize for this generic message but I have something to
say in my own thread... take it ease...

reply to post by kd1399


just say it on here if it pertains to this information, if not this is just and off topic post

reply to post by ATSecretAgent


No we dont live in a binary system.

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean

No we dont live in a binary system.

And you know this how exactly when the evidence seems to be saying the contrary?...

A one liner doesn't make what you think true...

reply to post by ATSecretAgent


Congrats OP! Great thread, providing real information and scientific data, along with links and helpful images..! I too think that if something were to hit us in 2012 it would be visible by now (at least to the big telescopes space agencies use). However, my opinion is quite different regarding pole shifting.



The fact that the Sun experiences a pole shift every 11 years does not mean that the Earth will be affected the same way. First of all, the Sun is made of gas, whereas the Earth mostly of rock. Then, you always have to take into consideration the fact that a star behaves differently than a planet on so many levels. And, last but not least, the Sun doesn't have people and animals living on it, so that we can know how pole shift can affect life as we know it. By the way, the last time planet Earth experienced a pole shift, the climate changed so rapidly and drastically throughout the entire planet, that everything was ice cold in just about ten minutes. Mamoths froze with their last meal in their teeth...
As I said above though, wonderfully formated thread, I hope it will help a lot of people understand a few facts about stars and our solar system. Star and flag for you

reply to post by csgt428


Good find, that is one of the publications that many of the articles that I referenced have drawn upon.

Originally posted by drakus

Originally posted by tomten
reply to post by drakus

 

Yes, the chance of planets remaining in orbit.
Around one or both stars in a binary system, is small.

Here's one though..

Surprise Discovery: Two Planets, Two Stars, One System

Wow, thanks for that link. Amazing find! Things like this is why I love science...



Now, about some "ideas" that were raised on this thread, i believe that, as we already have (a lot of ) threads about the speculative theoring about the implications of a Companion/Weird planet, we could use this thread to accumulate scientific DATA about this subject.
I'm very ok with letting our minds fly, many things are discovered/realized that way, but if that creative thinking is not used where and when it IS useful and instead is used EVERYTIME, we may have a problem.

For example, and with all due respect:
There was a previous post suggesting that Comet Elenin could be, not a comet, but a huge planet. Now, I respect freedom of voice so I'd never try to shut him up, like others would do, but, if you stop and think about it, it doesn't make much of sense, does it? I mean, if you are seriously thinking about the subject you should USE what we know; a comet is an object with such and such properties and influences. And so is a Planet. Now, if you know what kind of influence a comet exerts on stable orbiting planets, and you know what kind of influence a very larger object would have. How can you reach to the previous conclusion?
Off course, if you were just being funny, none of the previous applies

Hmm, i'd like to stress that I'M COMPLETELY OK with releasing our minds from the limitations of our knowledge from time to time, it's even healthy and I do it regularly. I just feel that we are mixing the tools, you don't use a screwdriver to put a nail up on the wall...

Peace.
Drakus

REALLY REALLY well said

this is the balance we need to try to achieve together !

reply to post by drakus


im with you on that my friend ,but my take on this is that TPTB are ruleing us with fear (TYRANNY).
so they can do as they please as they always have.