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

[lizzie]

This is a great thread!

It’s difficult for me to decide if there is any truth to the claims that the Sun has a binary “twin.” I have read that most star systems are binaries, so it is not unreasonable to assume that our solar system is any different.

davesmith_au said:

If there's indication of a binary companion, at say, 1000AU for example, there should also be an EXACT location posited for it, in which case I'm sure we'd be able to turn our huge telescopes in "that" direction and 'see' the binary, if it were there? Or is that asking a bit much...

If they don’t think a binary exists, they won’t bother looking for it?

JoeTB wrote:

…when in fact what the observations tell us is that the entire solar system is curving through space, probably in mutual orbit with another star(s)

.

I agree! Why wouldn’t the solar system be in a mutual orbit with other stars, especially if they all formed from the same plasma cells? If so, wouldn’t any “mutual attraction” have to do with the fact that they are all “gravitationally related” because of their common origin?

JoeTB wrote:

The question is this: Does the Earth precess relative to only the stars, or also to the rest of the solar system?

Why not both; it could be one or the other, or both depending upon the cyclical periodicity of both the earth and sun's orbits.

Jim Weninger wrote:

The model: The stars in the Pleiades share a similar charge. The sun is charged oppositely to the stars in the Pleiades. The electrical attraction between the sun and the Pleiades held the sun in a long period (~26 million year) nearly circular orbit about the Pleiades.

The reason why there are so many theories to explain precession is that we understand the process so poorly.

Your model is logical and makes sense based on what we assume to be true in the EU.

[rangerover777]

Nice animation of the earth’s orbit and it’s obliquity :
http://esminfo.prenhall.com/science/geo ... un_E2.html

A few questions and comments about the binary star theory :

1. If the sun have a twin, why not all the planets have similar obliquity and
precession and why the don’t point towards this twin ?
2. Maybe taking into consideration the way other planets behave, could contribute
to our understanding.
3. I agree with Dave Smith, that if we capture stars in deep space, why can’t we see
a star that directly influence our planet ? Though it maybe that this anonymous
star should not be anywhere within 30 degrees or so from where earth is pointing,
since even if earth pointing to this direction, maybe the star already changed it’s
position…
4. Maybe maybe Polaris (North Star) do have a role here ? I’m not sure if all option
where exhausted, in this direction.
5. By the way maybe we should consider an influence from the South pole direction ?
6. Maybe we are witnessing a Repulsion and Attraction at the same time. The attraction
tries to align the rotation axis (and the North and South pole line) to be 90 degrees to
the ecliptic plan, while the repulsion does not let it happen and keeps the rotation axis
at 22.5 degrees from it’s center. So maybe it’s both at the same time.
7. Another important point is to determine why the North and South poles are “wondering”
all the time from place to place, maybe it’s an attempt to balance something that have
to do with the precession ?
8. Also, we are too focusing on the North pole (which is important of course), but the South
one seems to play a less important one, for some reason.

Just thoughts,

Cheers

[JoeTB]

What about checking for a star in the center of the circle that forms the wobble path?

I don't know if that makes sense... but if there were some kind of repulsion or attraction or something that made the pole stay a certain distance, it could circle the center ( . )

or if this is the earths tilt: / then it would be at one or the other end of |

just a thought

[seasmith]

~
Solar quoting H. Aspden:

Reverting to my main argument, it follows that, since the Earth itself precesses and affects the aether sharing its spin, so that aether is subject to its own 'forced precession'.

or

If Aether is the stuff by which magnetic lines of 'force' are manifest, then the motions of the stellar/planetary bodies are predicated BY the Aetheric filaments. Much as are B-currents and double-layers.
I think this perspective would not be in disagreement with the points raised by Jim Weninger.

~~

[kevin]

I have great confidence in harold Aspden, but,
Instead of thinking that the earth affects the aether, why not think that the aether creates the earth, and causes all the known consequences?
Thus what if the earth is an electrical consequence of a flowing aether, it flows at the rate and direction that the earth is presumed to be moving.
That the earth and all its consequences ( us included ) are mere results of this method of creation and dissolvement, a creation that is constant, maybe thousands of times per second.
in other words momenterially no-thing exists, and that everything that is created is constantly been created and anialated.
The created acts then symbiotically with its creator, which results in all known and percieved phenonema, but it is not all down to the created, but the creator, the aether.

If you take on board this thinking, it solves many problems, including precession and how things appear to be solid and moving around each other, when in fact it is the aether movements that we need to comprehend.

This really needs a big step and a total throwing away of all we have thought we know, this is the hardest thing to do, it is akin to your software desperately defending itself.
The aether is no-thing, not nothing, it is the dual aspect of everything and everything is no thing that coalesces to form everything, and the whole darn thing is upon a structure of geometric brilliance where the supposed pathways of supposed moving objects are presumed to be moving on, they are not, it is our limited senses looking along the geometric pathways and been veiled against the true nature of universe.
And unless we recognise the true nature of universe you are banging your heads against a brick wall trying to comprehend something from the wrong end of a telescope, all things will be to scale, everything will be a universe in itself to scale, there is no mass or matter, except for that which is re-created momenterially and constantly alters as the variable inputs of aether all around a spherical geometric framework flux , we age because of this, constantly been created and dissolved , but each time fractionally altered.

IN MY OPINION.
Kevin

[polarityparadox]

genius.....

[Grey Cloud]

Superb Kevin.

[rangerover777]

Not that I have something against aether, I just not sure where is the beginning,
or how to bring it to life as an observation and draw the conclusions. Though I know
this thread is about precession, I’m trying to understand how the aether can cause
this phenomena.

Kevin said
“why not think that the aether creates the earth, and causes all the known consequences?
Thus what if the earth is an electrical consequence of a flowing aether, it flows at the rate
and direction that the earth is presumed to be moving.
That the earth and all its consequences ( us included ) are mere results of this method of
creation and dissolvement, a creation that is constant, maybe thousands of times per second.
in other words momenterially no-thing exists, and that everything that is created is constantly
been created and anialated.
The created acts then symbiotically with its creator, which results in all known and
percieved phenonema, but it is not all down to the created, but the creator, the aether.
If you take on board this thinking, it solves many problems, including precession and how
things appear to be solid and moving around each other, when in fact it is the aether
movements that we need to comprehend”.

So let’s assume that reality is being reborn at the rate of 10 billion times / second. How does
this bring us to understand earth’s tilt and precession ? Now, if we need to examine first the
aether’s properties and characteristics and then answer the precession question, then how do
we do that ? Or what “working model” or testing the aether do we have ?

It’s more or less like saying that the orbiting particles around the Atom are relatively far from
the core and actually the atom interior is mostly empty, so all of the physical reality that made
of atoms is mostly emptiness. Which is not wrong to say, but where do we go from here ?

Just a question.

Cheers

[kevin]

Rangerover 777,
We think,not easy I realise, I have been wrestling with this by myself for some time.
Asking myself if I am sane, trying to show to myself I am wrong.
It's a lonely old road, if you step out of the comfort zone.
It's why I have such confidence in Harold aspden, he knew he was stepping into the freezer.

I have an advantage, I can visualise all of this, I have driven myself to a standstill checking and better checking, trying constantly to prove what I detect false, thing is, I can't.
I am a simple person, not much schooling or anything, but I can dowse, taught as a youngster to find pipes and wells, never realised what I would find.
but I am following many others who have before, from megalithic sites to norman churchs, and more recently masonic lodges, others have known, others have stayed quiet.
I am beginning to comprehend WHY they have kept quiet, and its for good reason/s.
The power involved is the ultimate power, the creator and dissolver of all things.
In the wrong immatture hands as a weapon, well Tesla did say he cut split the world in two, I believe he could.
So I am thinking.
The time must be now, we must trust to ourselves, we need energy , not the ancient energy of today, but the free to all energy, we have no need to watch others starve, no need to drain the resources, no need to war and kill.
We have to learn to live together as one, we are all one, made from the STUFF of creation, it's right under our noses , in fact it passes right through all, and it wants to provide, no charge, no thanks, the only thing we have to do is recognise and embrace it.
kevin

[Solar]

If Aether is the stuff by which magnetic lines of 'force' are manifest, then the motions of the stellar/planetary bodies are predicated BY the Aetheric filaments. Much as are B-currents and double-layers.

I think this perspective would not be in disagreement with the points raised by Jim Weninger.

Yes, that; or something to that effect, appears to be the case.

...the Earth neither moves through the Aether, nor is it impelled by some cosmic Big Bang or a Hand of God in a vacuum of Space. Rather, it is the Aether that moves the Earth, because the Aether is in a perpetual state of ordered motion. The terrestrial atmospheric laminar flows and main shear zone(s) thus arise from the slowing down of the overall Aether flux - as a function of the angular momentum imparted by this flux to the planet and to the mass in its atmosphere. Aetherometry: A NOTE ON DAYTON MILLER'S SUPPOSED DISCOVERY OF AN AETHER DRIFT

The above note by the Correa's makes for an interesting read regarding:

A) The Dayton Miller "aether drift" experiment does not 'disprove' the existence of an aether. It 'disproves' the existence of a "stationary" aether. Therefore, the distinction between a dynamic aether and a stationary aether is made. It has been the inaccurate concept of a "stationary" aether that has been inappropriately slug about as 'proof' of the non-existence of an aether over all. This is where the confusion is coming in.

B) That the known speeding up and slowing down of geostationary satellite motions with altitude is demonstrating the slowing down of an 'influx' of aether into planet Earth.

C) It is this 'influx' of aether, it's interaction, that is perceived of, or 'causes' the quality of action called 'Rotation'. Or "spin" if one prefers. The inflowing Aether is the actual 'cause' of the earth's rotation.

[Plasmatic]

Could we call "all that emptiness" dark mode plasma? Then everything is connected by a plasmatic soup, and isolated areas are dense focuses of plasma.. ...Im only half joking.

[Solar]

Could we call "all that emptiness" dark mode plasma? Then everything is connected by a plasmatic soup, and isolated areas are dense focuses of plasma.. ...Im only half joking.

Either that or 'current in dark mode', negative electricity(?). I also can't help but wonder how it also relates to the the Faraday "dark space" of a glow discharge.

The Faraday dark space (E) separates the negative glow from the positive column. The electron energy is low in this region. The net space charge is very low, and the axial electric field is small.

Is it just a matter of 'density'? Or has a phase transition occurred wherein "mass bound charge" is no longer 'dominant' in those regions leaving primarily undetectable "mass free" charges in those areas? Which is something we would "see" as just "space"? Same with "dark mode plasma" or current in "dark mode".

One thing is for sure. It's not the case that there is "no-thing" there.

[Plasmatic]

One thing is for sure. It's not the case that there is "no-thing" there.

Amen to that!

[james weninger]

Nice animation of the earth’s orbit and it’s obliquity :
http://esminfo.prenhall.com/science/geo ... un_E2.html

A few questions and comments about the binary star theory :

1. If the sun have a twin, why not all the planets have similar obliquity and
precession and why the don’t point towards this twin ?
2. Maybe taking into consideration the way other planets behave, could contribute
to our understanding.
3. I agree with Dave Smith, that if we capture stars in deep space, why can’t we see
a star that directly influence our planet ? Though it maybe that this anonymous
star should not be anywhere within 30 degrees or so from where earth is pointing,
since even if earth pointing to this direction, maybe the star already changed it’s
position…
4. Maybe maybe Polaris (North Star) do have a role here ? I’m not sure if all option
where exhausted, in this direction.
5. By the way maybe we should consider an influence from the South pole direction ?
6. Maybe we are witnessing a Repulsion and Attraction at the same time. The attraction
tries to align the rotation axis (and the North and South pole line) to be 90 degrees to
the ecliptic plan, while the repulsion does not let it happen and keeps the rotation axis
at 22.5 degrees from it’s center. So maybe it’s both at the same time.
7. Another important point is to determine why the North and South poles are “wondering”
all the time from place to place, maybe it’s an attempt to balance something that have
to do with the precession ?
8. Also, we are too focusing on the North pole (which is important of course), but the South
one seems to play a less important one, for some reason.

Just thoughts,

Cheers

Why don't planets all have the same obliquity? If the solar system is spiraling through space due to E-M fields,all planets with magnetic fields should precess. The degree to which each planet precesses is proportional to the planet's magnetic field,but inversely proportional to the angular momentum from the planet's spin. The forces on a planet's field drive precession while the angular momentum of the planet tries to keep the planet stable.
I imagine the reason earth's magnetic pole is wandering from the geometric pole is this: Earth's core (magnetic pole)is keeping up with sun's path. Earth's crust (withmore angular monentum per unit mass) stays relatively fixed. If there is any truth to actual physical pole shifts(earth's crust not magnetic field) it could be because after earth's core wanders to a certain point, the crust suddenly jumps to catch up with the spin of the core.

[james weninger]

Also if our sun is moving through a magnetic field,should our pole point towards the source of magnetism? No.
Simple example;a compass does not point towards the center of earth,but lines up with field lines,perpendicular to earth's center.
With that in mind:
Earth's orbital plane is nearly edge on to the Pleiades (~4 degrees). If earth is charged,and orbiting the sun,that creates a magnetic pole perpendicular to earth's orbital plane. If Pleiades was source of magnetism,we would expect orbital plane of earth to be edge on to Pleiades.
Also, notice the point in Draco about which our earth's pole precesses is 90 degrees from Pleiades. Just what we would expect if our solar system was spiraling through Pleiades magnetic field