Two Great Lights, Saturn and Neptune

[Brigit]

In the Electric Universe, a star like our sun may gain planets in many different ways. It may fission, and in this way gain a stellar or gas giant companion; it may capture one of the many brown dwarfs within the Milky Way; and it may also experience the fissioning of one of the gas giants themselves.

While conventional astronomy has stressed that it is exceedingly hard for Saturn to have been captured -- in order to refute Velikovsky -- the captures and planetary migrations within astronomy have consistently multiplied over the years to include what is now dozens, dozens, and more dozens of bodies within our Solar System alone.

As modern observers, we are all used to viewing the clever gravity boosts and orbital insertions of our space crafts, which allow for the gravitational capture of our probes. A few swings around and a little acceleration at the right moment, and we move to the outer solar system; a few swings around, a little acceleration at the right moments, and then a lot of braking and a couple of swings around, and we are orbiting Mercury like its very own moon.

The Electric Universe has plenty of braking power for planetary capture which conventional astronomy lacks. When the plasmaspheres or magnetospheres of any two bodies contact one another, they begin to interact and equalize electrically. This may include sparks, as between two charged objects, or it may cause flaring and expelling of various materials. This in turn alters the mass, charge, and electrical stress of the giants involved. Therefore, should Saturn visit our Solar System, it may indeed loose much of its momentum both to the sun, and to other objects, which would result in a successful capture and an orbital insertion of Saturn.

[Brigit]

One of the ways of determining former familial relationships of planets, according to holoscience, is through the axial tilts retained by the planets.





(I will add references later.)

[Brigit]

Assembling the Solar System

"Trying to devise an evolutionary model of the solar system from a simple beginning is not going to work. The expert was almost right, we need a separate story for each of the gas giants. And we need to identify their scattered family members. The simplest approach is to match axial tilts because phase lock with the primary is normal for a satellite. And a spinning planet or moon behaves as a gyroscope and largely maintains its axial direction in inertial space even when disturbed. A disturbance manifests as precession of the spin axis.

For example, based upon other independent evidence, Saturn, Earth and Mars were of one family. Their axial tilts are 26˚44’, 23˚27’, and 23˚59’ respectively. Saturn still has its ephemeral water-ice ejecta rings. And its calculated “density” is the lowest—less than water—a result of its recent severe discharge activity."

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/assemblin ... ar-system/

Suppose it is a rainy winter, and our eyes continually wander a little over to the other planet that shares a similar axial tilt with Saturn: Neptune. It could be a coincidence, but taking the line of questioning a little further, is it possible that they were at one time orbital companions?

In other words, have twin dwarf stars ever been observed?

[Brigit]

Setting that question aside for the moment, I want to bring up the recent lesson space taught us, and that is that orbital systems are more often than not following their own rules. When New Horizons passed Pluto and its moons, it took every one's breath away.

Space News explored the problems for gravitational models and the unlikely collisions and captures required to make such a system possible.



Pluto and Charon dance around a barycenter, while the moons orbit the pair in the ecliptic plane.

Hydra, Nix, and Styx are in mutual orbital resonance, and experience very beautiful and strange quarterly configurations:


Image credit: Wik

It would be beautiful and strange to a local observer, that is. -- Suppose one was on a satellite of this system, on an outer orbital path; the light from the larger companion would shine for a while, then the smaller companion would shine for a while in their tight, daily motion. And occasionally, the other satellites would line up in the sky, creating alignments and possibly a few startling heavenly symbols.

[Aardwolf]

Setting that question aside for the moment, I want to bring up the recent lesson space taught us, and that is that orbital systems are more often than not following their own rules.

Yes, under Newtons laws that system should not exist. For example Charon moves so close to Styx it should be thrown into chaos every revolution. The fact that is doesn’t means that the orbits are nothing to do with individual planetary mass. It’s obvious that Styx orbits a mutual electromagnetic binary system created by Charon & Pluto.

[paladin17]

Setting that question aside for the moment, I want to bring up the recent lesson space taught us, and that is that orbital systems are more often than not following their own rules.

Yes, under Newtons laws that system should not exist. For example Charon moves so close to Styx it should be thrown into chaos every revolution.

Since you're making that confident statement, please, prove it.

[Aardwolf]

Setting that question aside for the moment, I want to bring up the recent lesson space taught us, and that is that orbital systems are more often than not following their own rules.

Yes, under Newtons laws that system should not exist. For example Charon moves so close to Styx it should be thrown into chaos every revolution.

Since you're making that confident statement, please, prove it.

Charon represents 11% of the combined mass of Pluto/Charon. It's orbit approaches Styx as close as 23,000km and recedes to 62,000km. However Styx's orbit is non-Keplerian and virtually circular. Charon exerts no measurable perturbation on Styx. Clearly this is bizarre for a mass dominated system but don't let that mess with your beliefs.

[Brigit]

I am sure this was directed to Aardwolf's specific comment, but I will provide the references for why I made the generalization.

1. binary asteroids
2. retrograde moons
3. eccentric orbit of Mercury
4. counter rotation in spiral galaxies
5. insufficient mass in spiral galaxies to explain velocity of stars
6. exoplanetary systems with close companions vs location of ice and gas giants in outer solar system
7. irregular moons
8. Pluto-Charon and moons
9. anomalous acceleration of space craft and other small movers in the solar system. Now where did I put that Space News with Eugene Bagashov on anomalous acceleration?

[Brigit]

1. "A binary asteroid is a system of two asteroids orbiting their common barycenter. The binary nature of 243 Ida was discovered when the Galileo spacecraft flew by the asteroid in 1993. Since then numerous binary asteroids and several triple asteroids have been detected."

The size and mass of asteroids are inferred by their magnitude of brightness, but I think this fluctuates, and does not necessarily yield an accurate result.

Next, asteroids have turned out to be very rocky bodies, and are not as fluffy as the calculations of their densities have suggested.
Now since their densities are calculated as less than that of a big boulder of the same size, it appears to me that there may be more than gravity at work in keeping them in binary and triple systems.



"an unusual type of object in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter: two asteroids orbiting each other and exhibiting comet-like features, including a bright coma and a long tail. This is the first known binary asteroid also classified as a comet."

[Brigit]

2. retrograde moons -- "Of the known satellites of the planets, a minority display retrograde revolution. These include the four outermost moons of Jupiter; Phoebe, the outermost moon of Saturn; and Triton, the largest of Neptune’s moons. The orbital planes of the satellites of Uranus are tilted so greatly that the description of these bodies’ motion as either retrograde or direct has little meaning. The revolutions around the Sun of all known asteroids are direct; of the known periodic comets, only a few, one of which is Halley’s Comet, move in a retrograde orbit."

These retrograde moons are considered to have been captured, but there are difficulties in explaining how they slowed down enough, and how their orbits then became so circular. In general.

But recently, more retrograde moons have been discovered near both Saturn and Jupiter:

One 'Oddball' Among 12 Newfound Moons Discovered Orbiting Jupiter
via space.com

"Nine of the newly discovered moons have retrograde orbits, meaning that they orbit in the opposite direction of the planet's spin. These satellites are part of a large group of moons that orbit in retrograde far from Jupiter. In fact, of Jupiter's 67 previously discovered moons, the 33 outermost moons all have retrograde orbits.

Two of the newly discovered moons orbit much closer to Jupiter and have a prograde orbit, meaning that they orbit in the same direction the planet. These are part of a group of prograde moons that orbit closer to Jupiter than the retrograde moons do. Most of these prograde moons take less than a year to travel around the planet."

I have classed this as a problem for gravitational systems because of the difficulties with capture. If one argues that they do not have to be captured, and their motions are Newtonian, I don't mind. Someone else can unscramble that egg.

[Brigit]

binary brown dwarf system subtopic: irregularities in gravitational systems

3. Mercury's eccentric orbit --

"When applied to gravitational problems Einstein's gravitational laws yield results that are close to those given by Newton. If results paralleled each other in every case, scientists might tend to retain the familiar concepts of Newtonian law and write off Einstein's theory as a weird if original fancy. But a number of strange new phenomena have been discovered, and at least one old puzzle solved, solely on the basis of General Relativity. The old puzzle stemmed from the eccentric behavior of the planet Mercury. Instead of revolving in its elliptical orbit with the regularity of the other planets, Mercury deviates from its course each year by a slight but exasperating degree."

"Astronomers explored every possible factor that might cause this perturbation but found no solution within the framework of Newtonian theory. It was not until Einstein evolved his laws of gravitation that the problem was solved. Of all the planets Mercury lies closest to the sun. It is small and travels with great speed. Under Newtonian law these factors should not in themselves account for the deviation; the dynamics of Mercury's movement should be basically the same as those of any other planet. But under Einstein's laws, the intensity of the sun's gravitational field and Mercury's enormous speed make a difference, causing the whole ellipse of Mercury's orbit to execute a slow but inexorable swing around the sun at the rate of one revolution in 3,000,000 years. This calculation is in perfect agreement actual measurements of the planet's course. Einstein's mathematics are thus more accurate than Newton's in dealing with high velocities and strong gravitational fields. 

An achievement of far greater importance, however, than this solution of an old problem was Einstein's prediction of a new cosmic phenomena of which no scientist had ever dreamed -- namely the effect of gravitation on light."

Astronomers did not explore every possible factor, because Mercury may have either migrated or been captured by the sun. The fact that there are so many volatiles on Mercury argues for this case. Making a mathematical calculation using warped space-time does not necessarily provide the only possible explanation of the history of the planet Mercury, nor does it necessarily prove that space-time is warped by large objects such as the sun. Hind sight should be 20/20 on this type of argument used to convince the public of the validity of GR. Gravitational lensing was added to strengthen the argument, but again, that is only really an interpretation of the redshifted rings. And it benefited by being the first witness to take the stand, and also by being protected from the due process of cross examination, provided by Halton Arp. That is why I think it can be included as simply another example of unusual motions in gravitational systems.

[Brigit]

The original question I raised in this post is whether a binary system of brown dwarfs (rather than a single brown dwarf star) may have crossed the heliospheric boundary of the sun, and been captured.

Because Neptune and Saturn share similar axial tilts, I thought it would be an interesting problem to work on.

[Brigit]

I was hinting that this binary system of brown dwarf stars could have been in an orbital configuration like that of Pluto, Charon, and their satellites.

Both Saturn and Neptune would, in this model, shed light on the satellite earth, but they would have each had a different quality of light. This is often the case with binary stars. Their outputs are often in different frequencies. See Sirius A and B for example.

In other words, the greater light would shine during the day, and the lesser light would shine during the night.

Supposing this binary system and its satellites entered the Sun's heliosheath; our first situational clue is that we find Neptune in the outer solar system, so we can make a provisional assumption that it was broken away from its binary partner early on.

Circumstantial evidence for Neptune's recent capture are its shared axial tilt with Saturn, its many moons, and its bright and ephemeral rings. The rings are possibly the result of recent flaring at the equator, leaving charged materials in an expulsion disc. Evidence of recent electrical fission may be found in its retrograde moon.

[Brigit]

What is needed are some observations of objects entering our Sun's atmosphere from the interstellar medium. As many observations as possible, in as many wavelengths as possible.

It may in fact be a fairly gentle transition.

But as soon as charge stress is experienced by a foreign object moving inward in the Sun's electric field, we would expect some cometary action. This would include loosing some materials and possibly forming a coma.

I have no idea if Saturn could simply pass off its dance partner in the outer reaches of the Solar System and continue its own migration inward.

Neptune's chemical composition is generally agreed to include water, methane and ammonia. Nitrogen and water are a key chemical match with earth.

[Brigit]

I think it would be wonderful to see some objects passing through the Sun's double layer boundary, that is some large objects -- not just the usual hydrogen nuclei.

But there is an interesting story in the news about a sextuplet system of stars. This beautiful arrangement is made up of at least two binaries. One set are stars, and one set are brown dwarf stars.

It strikes me that this could be the result of stars intercepting paths, and that we could be observing some stage of electrical capture. Or not.

Castor is a bright star in the constellation Gemini that, along with Pollux, is one of the two main guideposts for the asterism that is sometimes nicknamed "The Twins."

At magnitude 1.58, Castor is the 20th brightest star in Earth's night sky. It is also relatively close to the planet, at an estimated distance of 51 light-years from Earth.

A closer examination of the star with a telescope actually reveals it is made up of many. What naked-eye observers see as Castor is actually the combined light of six stars, ranging from main sequence stars to dwarfs.

Past observations with the European Space Agency's XMM-Newton satellite of this system revealed a variable set of X-ray flares, suggesting that the "schizophrenic" system may see most of its X-ray radiation from huge eruptions, NASA stated.

cont'd