Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby james weninger » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:24 pm

I stumbled onto something I think is very important. I read an article about how Arcturus seems to be heating up. In the article was a graph of Arcturus temperatures over much of the last century.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Obs...116..404G
The shape of this graph corresponded to another graph I had seen. On page 124 of "Lost Star of Myth and Time" is a graph of the rate of precession over much of the last century.
I believe the graphs are too similar to be coincidence.

Why should changes in Arcturus temperature correspond to changes in the rate of precession? The amount of E-M put out by a star is a function of it's temperature. If precession is caused by the solar system spiraling through the magnetic field of a star,then an increase in that star's E-M field (and hence temperature) should cause an increase in the rate of precession.

Arcturus IS controling the path of the sun!
james weninger
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby Solar » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:22 pm

james weninger wrote:I stumbled onto something I think is very important. I read an article about how Arcturus seems to be heating up. In the article was a graph of Arcturus temperatures over much of the last century.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996Obs...116..404G
The shape of this graph corresponded to another graph I had seen. On page 124 of "Lost Star of Myth and Time" is a graph of the rate of precession over much of the last century.
I believe the graphs are too similar to be coincidence.

Why should changes in Arcturus temperature correspond to changes in the rate of precession? The amount of E-M put out by a star is a function of it's temperature. If precession is caused by the solar system spiraling through the magnetic field of a star,then an increase in that star's E-M field (and hence temperature) should cause an increase in the rate of precession.

Arcturus IS controling the path of the sun!


Now, you REALLY! have my attention. I've been focused on this particular star for quite sometime myself and I'm more than a bit delighted to see that someone else has found an interest in it. I think that this star will turn out to be of great importance in relation to our own solar system as summed up in your post here. I'm not familiar with the book you've reference but you've certainly made my day!!! Must go read the link you've referenced!!

Woohooo!!
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby Drethon » Wed Dec 10, 2008 8:33 am

A question though, is Arcturus affecting our sun or are both stars being affected by the same "power generator"?
Drethon
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby Solar » Wed Dec 10, 2008 11:02 am

Drethon wrote:A question though, is Arcturus affecting our sun or are both stars being affected by the same "power generator"?


This is speculation of course but I personally I think that the answer is both. We're sitting in an arm of the Milky Way Galaxy electromagnetically embedded within it's structure as is Arcturus. Both are part of the "Local fluff" or "Local Bubble". However, Arcturus is considered to be part of the "Arcturus Stream":

This stream is not in the plane of the Milky Way galaxy and is likely the remnants of an ancient dwarf satellite galaxy, long since disrupted and assimilated into the Milky Way. It consists of old stars deficient in heavy elements.


This "Arturus Stream" is considered thus:

"We've confirmed the Arcturus moving group as being a star stream, which indicates a disruptive galaxy spiralled into our own," he says.

"Ours is a large galaxy and it has been eating other galaxies; it's been hungry. We can see what it's eaten by the crumbs that are left over from its meal." - Our galaxy eats neighbour


*If* true then the Milky Way apparently won the epic battle of their scenario thus Arcturus, and it's "stream" would seem to have been required to become a part of the Milky Way's 'power source'. Possibly by becoming another "step down" 'node' in the Milky Way's electrical circuit with companion stars in tow.

As stars born within, or subsequently 'attached', to the Milky Way they would seem to be required to be a part of it's greater circuit to then potentially bear effects on one another as they also form a local electric node or region within the same galactic structure.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby james weninger » Wed Dec 10, 2008 4:11 pm

Drethon wrote:A question though, is Arcturus affecting our sun or are both stars being affected by the same "power generator"?

That is a good question. And with that in mind I looked at the proper motion of Arcturus using "Starry Night" software. It appears to be moving away from the point in Draco which the sun is spiraling towards(if my model of precession is correct). What I am trying to say is that,yes, Arcturus' motion could be explained by both sun and Arcturus traveling through the same magnetic field. Arcturus would have to be charged oppositely to the sun,and spiraling down the same or parallel path that we are spiraling up. Does that make sense? As we got closer that would increase are our rate of spiraling(precession) too,wouldn't it? I'm thinking as I type so I may be way wrong here. But why should we measure a temperature increase for Arcturus in this case?
Jim
james weninger
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby Solar » Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:00 pm

james weninger wrote: But why should we measure a temperature increase for Arcturus in this case?


Have you considered Thermoelectricity aka the Thermoelectric Effect or Thompson Effect?:

It describes the heating or cooling of a current-carrying conductor with a temperature gradient.
Any current-carrying conductor (except for a superconductor), with a temperature difference between two points, will either absorb or emit heat, depending on the material...

In metals such as zinc and copper, which have a hotter end at a higher potential and a cooler end at a lower potential, when current moves from the hotter end to the colder end, it is moving from a high to a low potential, so there is an evolution of heat. This is called the positive Thomson effect.

In metals such as cobalt, nickel, and iron, which have a cooler end at a higher potential and a hotter end at a lower potential, when current moves from the hotter end to the colder end, it is moving from a low to a high potential, there is an absorption of heat. This is called the negative Thomson effect.


According to "Arcturus and Human Evolution":

Arcturus is a mildly metal-poor giant; according to the consensus of opinion...

a) The Past. ...If, however the effective temperature of the star is as high as the new measurements claim, then all the analyses will have underestimated its metal content by quite serious factors.

Therefore, either astrophysicists are getting steadily nearer to, or further from, astrophysical reality or Arcturus is hotting up for some evolution of its own.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby james weninger » Wed Dec 10, 2008 7:31 pm

Solar wrote:
james weninger wrote: But why should we measure a temperature increase for Arcturus in this case?


Have you considered Thermoelectricity aka the Thermoelectric Effect or Thompson Effect?:

It describes the heating or cooling of a current-carrying conductor with a temperature gradient.
Any current-carrying conductor (except for a superconductor), with a temperature difference between two points, will either absorb or emit heat, depending on the material...

In metals such as zinc and copper, which have a hotter end at a higher potential and a cooler end at a lower potential, when current moves from the hotter end to the colder end, it is moving from a high to a low potential, so there is an evolution of heat. This is called the positive Thomson effect.

In metals such as cobalt, nickel, and iron, which have a cooler end at a higher potential and a hotter end at a lower potential, when current moves from the hotter end to the colder end, it is moving from a low to a high potential, there is an absorption of heat. This is called the negative Thomson effect.


According to "Arcturus and Human Evolution":

Arcturus is a mildly metal-poor giant; according to the consensus of opinion...

a) The Past. ...If, however the effective temperature of the star is as high as the new measurements claim, then all the analyses will have underestimated its metal content by quite serious factors.

Therefore, either astrophysicists are getting steadily nearer to, or further from, astrophysical reality or Arcturus is hotting up for some evolution of its own.


I think the answer may be on page 66 of "The Electric Universe." It says"in an electric field, temperature is no longer a reliable measure of energy" and "the temperature is low where the accelerating electric field is strong".

Wow! I just got it! Arcturus IS oppositely charged compared to sun. The sun is entering a part of space where forces on it are greater,increasing spiraling motion of solar system(precession). Forces on oppositely charged Arcturus decrease,causing temperature readings to be higher! It works!
james weninger
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby james weninger » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:34 am

Drethon wrote:A question though, is Arcturus affecting our sun or are both stars being affected by the same "power generator"?


Actually,it must be Arcturus affecting us directly,or Arcturus temperatures would not correspond to immediate changes in precession. Let's say some "power generator" caused our solar system to precess faster,and at the same time caused the apparent temperature of Arcturus to rise. What we would observe on earth is the rate of precession increasing,then 36.7 years later(the time it takes for light to get here from Arcturus)we would see Arcturus temps rise.
On the other hand, Let's say changes in the E-M field of Arcturus cause increase in Arcturus' apparent temp. Then that field arrives at sun to affect precession at the same time light from Arcturus arrives with info on Arcturus temperature. This is what we observe.
Am I wording this correctly? Does this seem right?
Jim
james weninger
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby Solar » Fri Dec 12, 2008 3:20 pm

Have there been observations demonstrating a roughly 36-40 year or so variations in solar system precession and Arctural temp changes?

A few conjectures. Feel free to refute etc as I'm not particularly partial.

In relation to Arcturus being oppositely charged:

Arcturus is often considered to be a "Red Giant"; pg. 80 of The Electric Universe sheds further light on that topic. Here, the "Red Giant" phase is due to "profound electron deficiency". In order to acheive balance:

... it must collect more electrons than the plasma can deliver continuously to its surface. So the anode responds by expanding its influence, forming a negative space-charge sheath (plasma cell or double layer).

... as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger and stronger.

The electric field driving this process will also give rise to a massive flow of positive ions away from the star, or in more familiar word - a prodigious stellar "wind" ...

...when seen in electric terms, instead of being near the end point of a star's life, a red giant may be a 'child' loosing sufficient mass to begin the next phase of its existence - on the main sequence.


When considered as a "passing star", this is the way some articles have characterized Arcturus and its "stellar stream", and relation to potentially being the product of some sort of 'merger' perhaps the fluctuations of Arcturus' red giant phase stems from adaptations to what would be its relatively new galactic enviroment - as it continues to acclimate itself to a different electrical potential?

In such a case it seems the hypothesis cited above could also beget a star which forms an expansive negative space-charge sheath in order to satisfy its "electron deficiency". How would the resulting electric field affect existing stars in the "local bubble"? It seems that the e-field could be a driving force causing the existing stars of the local region ('electrical 'node') to increase electrical output to 'feed' the new arrival.

I'm a bit hesitant to say which affects the other more when the relationship appears to be reciprocal. As a red giant the over all current density of Arcturus would be low, spread out over a much larger surface etc. Our Sun on the other hand has a high current density on approach and when taken in conjunction with the other stars in the "local fluff" Arcturus would seem to have quite a bit of resource to draw from in that regard.

At 36.7 light years, or so, away (pretty close distance as space goes) I would also more inclined to think that an aggregate portion of the Arcturus Stream could cause an increase in local electrical output as opposed to the one star. This, by requiring the existing local node to be 'back fed' from the sources of its own electrical dependancy replinishing what Arcturus and its stream might deplete as it acquires surface area to meet the electron deficiency. This would also seem to be able to account for the "power generator" that could cause our solar system to precess faster while simultaneously increasing the temperature of Arcturus.

Interestingly, the "Local Bubble" as described by the "Internet Encyclopedia of Science" contains a small map for the region. The caption has interesting statements characterizing 'walls' of surrounding "dark mode" plasma in relation to the local cavity:

Notice that the local cavity is surrounded by many of these condensations, but this "wall" is broken in several places by low density interstellar tunnels that link the local cavity with other nearby bubble cavities such as the Pleiades and GSH 238+00+09.


And

Branching off from the Local Bubble, through the surrounding dense gas, appear to be a number of tunnels that open out into other cavities. The interconnecting cavities and tunnels, analogous to the holes in a sponge...


In an ideal state it would seem that the "bubbles" are balanced according to their relative elecrical properties i.e. double layers, e-fields, Langmuir sheaths, homogeneity, etc. Change the electrical perameters in one local region, and perhaps the others could probably electrically compensate via current flow through these "tunnels" resulting in the perception of the sun entering a part of space where forces on it are greater,increasing spiraling motion of solar system (precession)."

I wonder if Voyager would be able to discern a stellar 'wind' originating from the direction of Arcturus once it passes our heliosheath all together?

Lastly, here is another paper concerning The Temperature of Arcturus which I've only scanned. I'm hoping that it may answer some questions as to whether or not the temperature of Arcturus actually increased or perhaps measuring techniques inadvertently resulted in lower temperatures for previous studies. Section 4. "Discussion and conclusions" seems to hint at this.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1271
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to Sol

Unread postby james weninger » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:25 pm

Solar wrote:Have there been observations demonstrating a roughly 36-40 year or so variations in solar system precession and Arctural temp changes?

A few conjectures. Feel free to refute etc as I'm not particularly partial.

In relation to Arcturus being oppositely charged:

Arcturus is often considered to be a "Red Giant"; pg. 80 of The Electric Universe sheds further light on that topic. Here, the "Red Giant" phase is due to "profound electron deficiency". In order to acheive balance:

... it must collect more electrons than the plasma can deliver continuously to its surface. So the anode responds by expanding its influence, forming a negative space-charge sheath (plasma cell or double layer).

... as the sheath expands, its electric field will grow stronger and stronger.

The electric field driving this process will also give rise to a massive flow of positive ions away from the star, or in more familiar word - a prodigious stellar "wind" ...

...when seen in electric terms, instead of being near the end point of a star's life, a red giant may be a 'child' loosing sufficient mass to begin the next phase of its existence - on the main sequence.


When considered as a "passing star", this is the way some articles have characterized Arcturus and its "stellar stream", and relation to potentially being the product of some sort of 'merger' perhaps the fluctuations of Arcturus' red giant phase stems from adaptations to what would be its relatively new galactic enviroment - as it continues to acclimate itself to a different electrical potential?

In such a case it seems the hypothesis cited above could also beget a star which forms an expansive negative space-charge sheath in order to satisfy its "electron deficiency". How would the resulting electric field affect existing stars in the "local bubble"? It seems that the e-field could be a driving force causing the existing stars of the local region ('electrical 'node') to increase electrical output to 'feed' the new arrival.

I'm a bit hesitant to say which affects the other more when the relationship appears to be reciprocal. As a red giant the over all current density of Arcturus would be low, spread out over a much larger surface etc. Our Sun on the other hand has a high current density on approach and when taken in conjunction with the other stars in the "local fluff" Arcturus would seem to have quite a bit of resource to draw from in that regard.

At 36.7 light years, or so, away (pretty close distance as space goes) I would also more inclined to think that an aggregate portion of the Arcturus Stream could cause an increase in local electrical output as opposed to the one star. This, by requiring the existing local node to be 'back fed' from the sources of its own electrical dependancy replinishing what Arcturus and its stream might deplete as it acquires surface area to meet the electron deficiency. This would also seem to be able to account for the "power generator" that could cause our solar system to precess faster while simultaneously increasing the temperature of Arcturus.

Interestingly, the "Local Bubble" as described by the "Internet Encyclopedia of Science" contains a small map for the region. The caption has interesting statements characterizing 'walls' of surrounding "dark mode" plasma in relation to the local cavity:

Notice that the local cavity is surrounded by many of these condensations, but this "wall" is broken in several places by low density interstellar tunnels that link the local cavity with other nearby bubble cavities such as the Pleiades and GSH 238+00+09.


And

Branching off from the Local Bubble, through the surrounding dense gas, appear to be a number of tunnels that open out into other cavities. The interconnecting cavities and tunnels, analogous to the holes in a sponge...


In an ideal state it would seem that the "bubbles" are balanced according to their relative elecrical properties i.e. double layers, e-fields, Langmuir sheaths, homogeneity, etc. Change the electrical perameters in one local region, and perhaps the others could probably electrically compensate via current flow through these "tunnels" resulting in the perception of the sun entering a part of space where forces on it are greater,increasing spiraling motion of solar system (precession)."

I wonder if Voyager would be able to discern a stellar 'wind' originating from the direction of Arcturus once it passes our heliosheath all together?

Lastly, here is another paper concerning The Temperature of Arcturus which I've only scanned. I'm hoping that it may answer some questions as to whether or not the temperature of Arcturus actually increased or perhaps measuring techniques inadvertently resulted in lower temperatures for previous studies. Section 4. "Discussion and conclusions" seems to hint at this.


Let's see, where to start? The article you mention,"The Temperature of Arcturus", was written in 1982,and was ,I believe,an early attempt to try to explain away anomalous temperature measurements of Arcturus. By the time "Arcturus and Human Evolution" was written in 1996, it was clear that temperature measurements were not going to be explainable by current (mainstream) astronomical theory.
What happened was this: From 1920's to 1980's,temperature measurements for Arcturus (and our rate of precession) increased gradually,but steadily. In the 1980's Arcturus temps(and our rate of precession) fluctuated. From 1980's on,Arcturus temps(and our rate of precession) clearly were on an accelerated track,no longer explainable by standard astronomical theory.
Now EU theory would, (correctly I believe), explain the temperature measurements as follows: The temperature of Arcturus is not increasing. The random motion of molecules that we measure as temperature disappears;The motion of molecules is aligned by electric fields. In short;changes in field strength of Arcturus distort our temperature measurements.
What I am suggesting,is that the change in electric field of Arcturus must be affecting our rate of precession. Or it would be one heck of a coincidence for Arcturus temperature fluctuations to match precession fluctuations so well.
I know I have not addressed all your questions,observations yet. You have given me much to think about.
Jim
james weninger
 
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 2:49 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to S

Unread postby saul » Fri Dec 16, 2011 12:23 pm

Wow, great thread thank you! I have been sent on a very educational tour :)

I'm not convinced that the basically linear trend in measurements of Arcturus temperature has anything to do with the basically linear trend in measured precession rate of the earth's axis.

It's worth taking a look at a map of stars closer to us:
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/20lys.html

Is anybody aware of a statistical study comparing nearby stars color / spectral type / position on main sequence to their proper motions? If not, this would make an interesting research project.

Thanks - saul
saul
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to S

Unread postby oz93666 » Thu Dec 24, 2015 8:13 pm

Let's assume for a moment that the sun is a binary star ...the rate of precession appears fairly constant (thought to be increasing slightly), this must surely indicate that the suns orbit about the common center of mass is close to circular... not too elliptical. we know the orbit time , at around 24000 years, this must give a good indication of the distance to the other body...

nick c wrote:
I would think that there could be some observation or measurement that would eliminate one of these options. For instance, ....Is it possible to determine this with a space telescope, such as the Hubble? or would it be the same as an Earth based telescope?
It would seem to me that a brown dwarf at 1000 AU [would be outside the Sun's plasmasphere which extends to about 100 AU (?)] and would be shining with it's own light, and be visible from Earth, at least telescopically (at a magnitude well within the range of a backyard telescope.) I would think that it would have been discovered by an observatory by now, as the skies have been searched with machines that blink photos, taken at different times, for many years looking for new planets. But then perhaps I am overestimating it's luminosity.


According to Keith Hunter's theory, Nibiru has mistakenly been assumed to be a planet or even a large mass brown dwarf star with an elliptical orbit around the Sun. Keith has found evidence to suggest that Nibiru is a planet orbiting a neutron star and our solar system is actually a binary star system.
Image

Google Sky (part of Google Earth) has blocked the area of space where this dwarf star and Nibiru are said to be with a black oblong. the coordinates are
5h 53m 27s, -6 10' 58.
Image
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to S

Unread postby oz93666 » Fri Dec 25, 2015 12:01 am

Perhaps the biggest single piece of evidence in support of the the binary sun hypothesis is to do with the angular momentum of the sun.
It's widely agreed that the sun and planets formed from a nebulae cloud, which had a slight spin ... this angular momentum has to be preserved in the bodies that condensed out of it , we see this in the orbiting of the planets around the sun , and the sun being at the centre , should have a considerable spin , but this spin is not there....
Image

But if we assume the sun is binary , with an orbit of 24,000 years, and adjust the angular momentum figures accordingly .....

Image

Everything fits perfectly....

Just this one piece of data alone gives overwhelming support for the hypotheses .
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to S

Unread postby oz93666 » Fri Dec 25, 2015 1:27 pm

When I posted the two graphs above, I didn't fully understand why having a companion star should so drastically change the suns momentum.... After sitting in a dark room for an hour and thinking , I now see that what this top graph tells us is that the sun was not at the center of the dust cloud from which the solar system was formed , if it were the suns spin would be terrific!

These figures show ,the solar system was formed in an eddy , which itself is rotating around the center of mass of the cloud.

So this angular momentum data doesn't necessarily mean we have a companion star, only that we are part of, and are rotating around the center of mass, of a partially condensed dust cloud , which may have none, or any number of (dim) stars in it.
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Obvious Truth? Precession due to companion star(s) to S

Unread postby moses » Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:29 pm

On another tact, it is often shown that precession was just the same in ancient days and this is used as proof that there was no pole shift. However if precession was caused by the curvature of the trajectory of the Sun through space, then the pole could have wandered all over the place and gyroscopically returned to about the same position, where precession would continue just as before.

Also there are the theories that the Earth had a long period of no seasons whilst the Earth was orbitting the Sun. Well it could not have been too long because precession, if caused by the above Sun curved trajectory, would have moved the pole so that seasons would start.

So this theory on precession is very significant for those who look into the past. It is possible that the pole made a significant jump in position in the sky it pointed to, and so hundreds or thousands of years of history did not actually exist, as we would have thought they did without this jump. Or the opposite. Not to mention the planetary interaction which would have caused the pole shift.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: fosborn_ and 3 guests