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

[oz93666]

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. ..Mo

Hi Mo .... I find it hard to imagine under what circumstances a rapid,(rotational axis) pole shift could occur, the forces needed to produce this would be enormous, and would surely cause the break up of the crust of the planet...oz

[moses]

Hi oz,
we have covered this before here. But basically the pole shift does not need to be that rapid, rather Mars, say, could produce a thunderbolt to Earth over a few days producing a retarding force or an uplifting of the crust which would produce a wobble which slowly increases. Rather like a toy top wobbles.

But perhaps the crust did break, and produce the plates that we see today. Mountains would have formed in this, and lands would have sunk. Although a gentler effect might well have happened too, with the pole doing a 30 degree wobble, say. This might have resulted in the 360 day orbit changing to the 365.25 orbit.

This has been discussed extensively, doing a google thunderbolts.info search is interesting.
Cheers,
Mo

[johnm33]

This thread was an interesting read, especially Kevins post early on [taking nothing away from other contributions]. If we are spiralling through space in some kind of Birkland current, and by that, I'm meaning a charged vortex emanating from nearer the galactic center, is it possible that previously Saturn/Sol was a star which slowly caught up with us in the same 'field' and the two systems merged? I ask this because it seems that if Sirius, as far away as it is, can be used as a kind of reset for the calender then a star nearer might well prove to be even more accurate. Knowing this place this probably came up years ago! any links?

[pavlink]

Where is the companion?
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=14503


How the Sun and the companion interact?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=14488#p85724


The solar system is also a triple star system.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/t ... #msg513520

[johnm33]

What are the chances that the solar system travels in a birkland current that wraps around one of the helix' in twisted pair type 1, b. Such that it orbits the 'tube' every +/- 26,000 years, touches the other coil about once every 40 odd thousand years and is nearest to the galactic center every 100 odd thousand years. Is sirius slowly catching us up orbiting the same 'tube'? Is that what happened with Jupiter? http://etacar.put.poznan.pl/piotr.piera ... dPair.html

[kevin]

What are the chances that the solar system travels in a birkland current that wraps around one of the helix' in twisted pair type 1, b. Such that it orbits the 'tube' every +/- 26,000 years, touches the other coil about once every 40 odd thousand years and is nearest to the galactic center every 100 odd thousand years. Is sirius slowly catching us up orbiting the same 'tube'? Is that what happened with Jupiter? http://etacar.put.poznan.pl/piotr.piera ... dPair.html

Spot on johnm33,
At all scale.
ANU best visualisation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOMYdrdpMMo
Kevin

[johnm33]

A bit off topic but just a follow up thought about the trajectory. Is it possible that we are not orbiting the galactic center but are following a path more like the possibilities shown here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heli ... -sheet.gif and the reason it looks like we're orbiting the galactic center is due to both it's rapid spin, and an overestimation of the solar systems age? How to find out?

[Webbman]

A bit off topic but just a follow up thought about the trajectory. Is it possible that we are not orbiting the galactic center but are following a path more like the possibilities shown here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Heli ... -sheet.gif and the reason it looks like we're orbiting the galactic center is due to both it's rapid spin, and an overestimation of the solar systems age? How to find out?

I also think we are following the pathway of the galactic currents but I don't think they are completely uniform. I think we drift off and come back like corkscrew but a little more erratic/complex due to our location in the outer areas.

I cant see a compansion star being possible at all but the other planets especially the big ones might have some effect as well since alignments are pretty complex even within the planets.

if you look at planets like big magnets, the path of a current shunted through the sun and other nearby magnets would be the most likely sources of instabilities and cyclical events.

[Markhsmit]

I have read some very interesting replies in this thread, and learned a lot.

Yes, the precession of the equinoxes cannot be due to Newton's "wobble" idea. And yes, the sun appears to curve through space, taking the planets with it. Thus raising the possibility of a binary star, perhaps Serious as BRI suggests, although there are other suggestions. But let me stick with Sirius...

Depending on the internet source, many agree we are leaving the iron age (Plato's Great Year), or the Kali Age (Yuga cycle). Some speculate that the zenith of the Golden Age was around 11,000 BC (+/-). Many cultures around the world have past down, through the oral tradition (now referred to as myths), this great period. According to BRI calculations, this was when Serious was swinging closely around the sun, of course open to debate and more observations. The Book Hamlet's Mill has an exhaustive, if not opaque collection of myths regarding this turning of a great wheel. Krishna is well documented, and the Dogon's may have seen the companion stars. It is often thought that It signified disaster, which doesn't sound too Golden although this could be during its decline. We have Velikovsky and his followers (which I admire) suggesting an unstable solar system during "historical times". Again ~11,000 BC seems a possibility. Also this was around the time of great flooding and ice age changes. Could Sirius be part of the pictographs?

So, given what we now believe to be a stabilization of the solar system through electrical balancing, what kind of external electromagnetic force would it take to destabilize the solar system once again? Can this be calculated with our current theories?

It has been suggested that Sirius is also an anode, which makes sense. We also know the size of Sirius and its companion star(s). Therefore can we estimate its electromagnetic flux? If indeed Sirius is on its way back (>10,000 years) how close would it have to get to disrupt our solar system, or even add comets/planets? And, has this happened in cycles in the earth's history for hundreds of thousand years, thus raising the possibility of previous civilization? Especially if man's intelligence has not changed for 80,000 years according to current anthropology and the incidence of geniuses has not changed. Or was our present human habitable world and population growth a result of a new alignment? Has anybody in EU tackled these things?

Just curious. Any links would be welcome.
Cheers!
Mark

[Michael Anteski]

Bringing in Velikovsky and the date 11,000 BC doesn't seem to me to correlate with this Post's conjectures as to a companion star to our sun, because Velikovsky was talking about Planet Venus having once been an interloping comet into our solar system which caused immense disturbances to Earth, due to Venus's fly-by near to Earth, and its magnetic effects causing a cataclysm on Earth. -I don't see how that connects with there being a dark companion star in the solar system.

I do happen to agree with your suggestion that the Velikovskian event occurred around the date 11,000 BC, however. -I wonder how you happened to arrive at that particular date for it. -I believe Velikovsky was right about there having been a Venus cometary cataclysm, but that he got the time frames wrong. (He associated the eruption of Thera in the Mediterranean in 1500 BC as being the Venus/comet event.) Of course, in 1950 when Velikovsky was writing about it, there wasn't as much information about the Thera event as there is now.

Scholars were able to disprove Velikovsky's time frame, by showing that reliable ancient astronomical charts show that Venus was in its present orbit well prior to 1500 BC. Using that fact, they were able to throw out Velikovsky's entire Venus/cometary model, which I think was unfortunate.

[nick c]

Scholars were able to disprove Velikovsky's time frame, by showing that reliable ancient astronomical charts show that Venus was in its present orbit well prior to 1500 BC. Using that fact, they were able to throw out Velikovsky's entire Venus/cometary model, which I think was unfortunate.

Michael,
That is simply not true. Your are a victim of the mainstream disinformation campaign against Velikovsky. Velikovsky made mistakes but this was not one of them.
I assume that you are referring to the so called "Venus Tablets of Ammizaduga" which are a Babylonian record of the movements of planet Venus. No mythology or interpretation, the tablets are a straight forward record of observations of the disappearances and reappearances of Venus over a 17 year period.
They have been cited by critics of V as evidence that Venus was in its present position as early as 3000 BC. However, most scholars date them to the 1st Millenium, probably around 800 BCE.
Well it stands to reason that any debate on the date of the tablets can be established through retrocalculation. The fact of the matter is that uniformitarian scholars who have attempted such retrocalculations could only achieve a "fit" by changing the dates and alleging that they were correcting "scribal errors." Other uniformitarian scholars declared the observations to be impossible and unreliable. Of course, that is because this is an actual record of Venus on a different orbit than today. Lynn Rose and Raymond Vaughn have done extensive analysis of the tablets, with several papers published in various catastrophic journals.
Ironically, these observations which are often touted as falsifying Velikovsky's theory actually are a strong piece of evidence in support of that theory. At least to the extent that it is a record of Venus moving on a different orbit than today.

The bottom line is that Velikovsky's analysis in Worlds In Collision (1950), Chapter 10, pp 198-200 stands as written.


As a side note, I would not put any value on the proposed catastrophe(s) dated at 11,000 years before the present. That date is derived from radiocarbon dating which has no value as it has an implied uniformitarian assumption, ie that carbon levels have remained constant. Velikovskian type catastrophes would by their very nature require the dumping of immense amounts of carbon into the atmosphere affecting the amounts absorbed by plants and animals.

[johnm33]

Nick
"Of course, that is because this is an actual record of Venus on a different orbit than today. Lynn Rose and Raymond Vaughn have done extensive analysis of the tablets, with several papers published in various catastrophic journals."
Did they come to any conclusion as to where the orbit was? or how erratic it was?
Plus what's your best guess at the catastrophe date? I can't stretch it much beyond 6,000 BP which leaves me a lot to unlearn.
thanks john

[nick c]

Hi John,
I am just going from my memory though I did read all of their articles; the last one being about 20 years ago. Rose and Vaughan could not come to any definite conclusion, but it appears that Venus as described in the tablets was in a much more elliptical orbit than today, but was still entirely inside of the Earth's orbit. The complication to the issue was that the Earth was probably not in the same orbit either.

The 17 year period of the observations must have been a noteworthy time for Babylonian astronomers as there are different copies of the stone tablets. They are cut an dried observations with no myth or poetry. The describe the appearance and disappearance of Venus as it moves from inferior to superior conjunction. The observations give the date of disappearance and the date of appearance. Also, the number of days of invisibility are recorded, so that provides a check on possible scribal errors.

[Webbman]

why cant precession just be due to the helical nature of .. well everything.

which begs another question. Since it is helical, is there any evidence of the sister current?