SPHERE telescope disproves existence of binary star systems

[quantauniverse]

The new SPHERE telescope has scientists puzzled over their failure to detect a tiny companion star orbiting star V471 Tauri in an irrefutably believed binary star system. Could it be that binary star systems do not exist, or are rare, and not common? If they cannot detect what they had predicted, do not believe in their binary supernova models, having tiny theoretical low mass companion stars, to be accurate supernova models for measuring the expansion of galaxies.
http://holographicgalaxy.blogspot.com/2 ... roves.html

[Metryq]

This particular case failed to find a binary at V471 Tauri, but it does not disprove all binary systems. Your headline is misleading.

[D_Archer]

This particular case failed to find a binary at V471 Tauri, but it does not disprove all binary systems. Your headline is misleading.

Well, binary systems are assumptions are they not?

Sirius B is? It is not clear at all what it is.

Look at google images and you find a lot of artist conceptions, does not bode well for such systems.

And in Donald Scott BC model, only 1 star is created in a z-pinch. Multiple stars only form along the filament at other pinches.

Regards,
Daniel

[D_Archer]

Zooming in on Sirius:
http://www.spacetelescope.org/videos/heic0516a/

Look like it is a more distant star...or...

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

Am I missing something here?
Why does the single case of an absent supposed third component to a binary system falsify the proposition that binary arrangements are common?
Of course binaries are common. We can directly observe (telescopically and with the naked eye) numerous examples. In the case of Sirius (A and B), Alpha Centauri (A and B), and many others; the components are observed in motion as they orbit.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood the original post.

[D_Archer]

Am I missing something here?
Why does the single case of an absent supposed third component to a binary system falsify the proposition that binary arrangements are common?
Of course binaries are common. We can directly observe (telescopically and with the naked eye) numerous examples. In the case of Sirius (A and B), Alpha Centauri (A and B), and many others; the components are observed in motion as they orbit.

Please correct me if I have misunderstood the original post.

The disproved binary was their best case for binary star systems (or double stars). So this does not bode well for all other assumed cases.

I think mainstream seperates "double stars" and "visual binaries" or something, i think it is all misguided.

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

No. In my post I explained that many nearby binaries are not simply lined up (visual binaries). There are observations over the years of the stars orbiting around each other. They are definitely part of the same system.
Here is but one example, there are many more, it shows Sirius A and B and the observed positions over the years:

Sirius

This is clearly a double star system. The two stars are not merely lined up, but are in an orbital relationship.

[quantauniverse]

My apology, the headline should say "disproves existences of predicted binary star supernova theories by big bang scientists"
I disbelieve in everything with the big bang! No second nor first star in a binary has been directly observed. Just gravity theories without electromagnetism shaping supernovas and bipolar nebulaes. Variations in spectroscopic brightness, are not low mass tiny nearby companion eclipses, but magnetic field variations by one star, like they said about V471Tauri. The sun is a positively charged anode terminal emitting positive charged solar wind particles, and would repel another positive charged anode star from forming a binary system. Stars form inside electrical filaments like beads on strings and twist into knots that emit different types of radiations, but they are Birkeland current emissions, not binary star systems. Theoretical Sirius B is strangely a tiny earth sized dwarf (not visible) made only of pure hydrogen gas, and just 20 au from bright massive sirius A. The big bang dogma with classification systems, has fooled society about binary and trinary star systems existing. Steve Smith writes in "An Ordinary Star" http://thunderbolts.info/wp/2014/07/16/an-ordinary-star that the sun is an anode, or positively charged terminal. The cathode is the heliopause that forms a double layer with a gigantic Birkeland current comprising a double layer single star! This means spectrocopic or so called visible binary star systems do not exist, being produced by magnetic field variations of the radiations emitted by a solar or stellar double layer ! This is a great EU theory, probably formerly stated, that I think will be backed by Stephen Smith, after I predict SPHERE will fail everytime to detect a binary star system.
This is the magnetic field variations we see in one star.

[nick c]

quantauniverse,
As far as the validity of inferences derived from the BB theory you have no disagreement from me. I am still not clear as to what it is that you are advocating. It seems to me that you are questioning the reality of binary systems. You wrote:

Theoretical Sirius B is strangely a tiny earth sized dwarf (not visible) made only of pure hydrogen gas, and just 20 au from bright massive sirius A.

No, Sirius B is a white dwarf star. It is visible in earth bound telescopes. A planet, even as large as Jupiter, would not be visible from Sirius' distance. Sirius B is a white dwarf companion star to Sirius A. In The Electric Sky p. 164, Scott explains white dwarf stars:

The ES model simply explains them as being very small stars that are experiencing very high current densities. These are the "white dwarfs."

The EU recognizes that Sirius is a binary. White dwarfs are recognized by the EU as a type of star.


The EU does not deny the existence of binaries and multiple star systems! There is nobody in the Thunderbolts, to my knowledge, who advocates that binary stars do not exist.
On the contrary, there are many instances whereby electrical conditions promote the formation of a binary or multiple star systems.
The TPOD you cite does not support your position. You have taken a leap on your own and come to a conclusion that is not supported by EU theory.
Here is a quote from another TPOD
Stellar Dumbbell May Illustrate Electric Fissioning

A pair of stars orbiting one another at high speed and close proximity surprises conventional astronomers. In the Electric Universe, such phenomena are expected.

This TPOD describes a double star system that has confounded mainstream theory but is expected and explained by the Electric Star Theory. Nowhere in this TPOD is there a denial of the reality of the existence of the binary system. This TPOD was written by Steve Smith and indicates that close doubles, are the result of electrical fissioning, a process described in greater detail by Scott in The Electric Sky where there are given many examples of double stars whose origin is given a simple electrical explanation. Nowhere in that book is the existence of binaries and multiple star systems denied, again the situation is the exact opposite, binary systems are described and their origins explained in the context of the Electric Star.
Binary systems are expected to be common in the Electric Universe!

[D_Archer]

quantauniverse,
As far as the validity of inferences derived from the BB theory you have no disagreement from me. I am still not clear as to what it is that you are advocating. It seems to me that you are questioning the reality of binary systems. You wrote:

Theoretical Sirius B is strangely a tiny earth sized dwarf (not visible) made only of pure hydrogen gas, and just 20 au from bright massive sirius A.

No, Sirius B is a white dwarf star. It is visible in earth bound telescopes. A planet, even as large as Jupiter, would not be visible from Sirius' distance. Sirius B is a white dwarf companion star to Sirius A. In The Electric Sky p. 164, Scott explains white dwarf stars:

The ES model simply explains them as being very small stars that are experiencing very high current densities. These are the "white dwarfs."

The EU recognizes that Sirius is a binary. White dwarfs are recognized by the EU as a type of star.


The EU does not deny the existence of binaries and multiple star systems! There is nobody in the Thunderbolts, to my knowledge, who advocates that binary stars do not exist.
On the contrary, there are many instances whereby electrical conditions promote the formation of a binary or multiple star systems.
The TPOD you cite does not support your position. You have taken a leap on your own and come to a conclusion that is not supported by EU theory.
Here is a quote from another TPOD
Stellar Dumbbell May Illustrate Electric Fissioning

A pair of stars orbiting one another at high speed and close proximity surprises conventional astronomers. In the Electric Universe, such phenomena are expected.

This TPOD describes a double star system that has confounded mainstream theory but is expected and explained by the Electric Star Theory. Nowhere in this TPOD is there a denial of the reality of the existence of the binary system. This TPOD was written by Steve Smith and indicates that close doubles, are the result of electrical fissioning, a process described in greater detail by Scott in The Electric Sky where there are given many examples of double stars whose origin is given a simple electrical explanation. Nowhere in that book is the existence of binaries and multiple star systems denied, again the situation is the exact opposite, binary systems are described and their origins explained in the context of the Electric Star.
Binary systems are expected to be common in the Electric Universe!

That is all fine, but there is a caveat, what if? (as Tom Wilson put in a recent thunderbolts project video) What if there are no binary star systems. I know the explanation power of EU is great but what if it is not needed in this instance...

This data deserves critical review and rechecking of previous assumptions about these systems, maybe EU has taken mainstream assumptions about these system as fact... food for thought.

And the TPOD states >

May Illustrate Electric Fissioning

. May is a possibility not a fact.

Regards,
Daniel

[nick c]

What if there are no binary star systems.

That is not a problem because the reality is that there are numerous binary systems. Observations support that. I previously posted a chart of the observations of Sirius A and B, in which it is shown that these two are in an orbital relationship. Here it is again:

images.jpg (7.39 KiB) Viewed 13482 times

This type of observation is available for numerous nearby stars and their companions. The fact that so many of our stellar neighbors are in binary systems indicates that double star systems are common.

Here is another set of observations, made over many years, of 70 Ophiuchi A and B:

Here are observations of Alpha Ursa Majoris (Dubhe) and its' companion diagraming its' movement and predicted positions for this century:

images.png (5.91 KiB) Viewed 13482 times

These positions have been observed for many years revealing that the companion stars have completed their orbits.

There are many more examples.
While some apparent binaries are the result of chance line ups of two stars that are distant from each other, there are techniques for determining if there is an orbital relationship. One of the more obvious techniques is plotting the relative positions by making observations over the years.

This is, as far as I am concerned, conclusive proof that binary systems exist and are in fact quite common. Assertions to the contrary can only be made if one ignores the evidence.

[D_Archer]

I think mainstream seperates "double stars" and "visual binaries" or something, i think it is all misguided.

Regards,
Daniel

Let me quote myself here, he, never done that.

Nick,

You are professing the existence of visual binaries, they are indeed possible, but wiki states: "Many visual binaries have long orbital periods of several centuries or millennia and therefore have orbits which are uncertain or poorly known. They may also be detected by indirect techniques*, such as spectroscopy (spectroscopic binaries) or astrometry (astrometric binaries). If a binary star happens to orbit in a plane along our line of sight, its components will eclipse and transit each other; these pairs are called eclipsing binaries, or, as they are detected by their changes in brightness during eclipses and transits, photometric binaries" [emphasis added by me] *underlined, mainstream sciences indirect techniques can not be trusted, imho.

The SPHERE telescope looked at a 'double star' system not 'visual binary', mainstream even seperates the definitoins as distinct from one another.

This double star system is falsified as best case and that means other double star system when looked at by SPHERE will likely also be falsified, i think that is the point. The Holmberg IX galaxy is 13 million light years away (they say, i dont trust any distance measurements, except maybe hipparcos), they think they detected 2 stars where the paper1 states "the light curve is well-fit by an overcontact model in which both stars are overflowing their Roche lobes" , they deduce a second star only by a light curve, at 13 million light years, i say this could be anything.

Regards,
Daniel

1] http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2376

[nick c]

Daniel,
I am not sure what your point is (in the above post.)
I am also not sure what definition you are using when you wrote 'visual binaries' or what is the relevance to my post.

What I did show is that many nearby stars have companion stars which are not inferred by other means (spectroscopy or light measurement etc.) but can be viewed and/or photographed in a telescope. Furthermore, their relative motions have been observed (in some cases for as much as 200 hundred years) and are definitely in orbital relationships with a companion. Some of the systems have been observed to have completed one or more orbits. There is no inference, it is cut and dried observations.

This evidence alone falsifies the notion that there is no such thing as a binary star, furthermore the probability is that these double stars are quite common. The basis for this is that so many of our neighboring systems are binaries, it must be that multiple stars are common. In a 10 ly sphere around our Sun there 11 known neighbor stars. Four (5 if you count the Sun) are single stars, and 7 are in binary/multiple star systems:
-Sirius A and B
-Luyten 726-8 A and B
-Alpha Centauri A, B, and C

That being said direct visual observation is not possible with most stars because they are too far away, so astronomers rely on other methods such spectroscopy, motion, regular (eclipsing) variations in light output, etc. etc. I see no reason to doubt the validity of these methods. Misinterpretations are sometimes made...of course. But I think that much of the time they are correct.

Many of us disagree with mainstream interpretations of cosmic phenomena, however they are correct about some things, we should not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There is a difference between observations (data gathering) and interpretation of that information within the context of a paradigm.

[quantauniverse]

EU can certainly do without binary star theory, which was devised by big bang spectroscopic interpretations and gravity theory. I repeat no photos exist of two stars orbiting each other. SPHERE findings are explained by magnetic field variations of the larger star, and no second star detected. This means that the lesser changing positional orbital like motions of light near proximity to the bright star, don't at all prove a binary system exists, we see light emitted by a Birkeland current and spinning double layer star!! And I am getting excited about it. I never believed they see planets orbiting in a binary system, they can last a billion years at most.
P.S. Show me the photo of 2 binary stars orbiting each other. We see our planets with moons, and they orbit by flux tube and electric ring current. never has anyone seen two supernovas orbiting that blew up together, just spectroscopic interpretations by big bang scientists that love gravity and dogmatism instead of electricity.

[D_Archer]

Daniel,
I am not sure what your point is (in the above post.)
I am also not sure what definition you are using when you wrote 'visual binaries' or what is the relevance to my post

Well, mainstream is confusing with its designations.

So lets just state that i think not all double star systems are double stars.

If they can makes mistakes like this > http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/d-bri ... O2rkXzF98E

Saying eta carinae is a double star is misguided and wrong. It is just an active z-pinch. If you can state a case were EU thinks 2 stars are created in a z-pinch, let me know.

---
And the TPOD you linked to > http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... ission.htm

This is not a visual binary system but mainstream does think it is a double star. Why say fission and parade the mainstream line that this is a double star when the actual evidence is not clear at all.

Eegards,
Daniel