http://www.physorg.com/news65117758.html
In Walter Cruttenden"s book, "Lost Star of Myth and Time", he states that the sun"s companion has an orbit of eccentricity 0.038, and is 1500 years past apoapsis in a 24,000 year orbit. This is enough inforation to calculate the following: the ratio of our companion"s radial motion to its proper motion. For example, in a nearly circular orbit the companion"s radial motion would be zero and it would show only proper motion. In a highly eccentric orbit at this point past apoapsis we should see more radial motion towards us and only slight proper motion. Can anyone calculate the exact ratio of radial motion to proper motion?
QUOTE
The general hypothesis behind Lost Star of Myth and Time is that as our solar system moves in its binary orbit around a companion star, it not only produces the observable of precession (due to the change in orientation of an observer on Earth), this orbit carries the Earth in and out of an EM field that affects the Earth’s ionosphere, magnetosphere and indirectly consciousness, thereby producing alternating Dark and Golden Ages in synch with the precession cycle.
As readers will recall, for thousands of years the Earth was in a descending phase, one that saw the decline of Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, the Mediterranean, Megalithic and Mesoamerican cultures, that culminated in the pits of the last Dark Age about 500AD. If this hypothesis is true we can expect to find great wisdom in very ancient cultures, an increasing number of archaeological sites older than expected, greater sophistication of very ancient cultures, etc.
Over the last 30 years this has proved to be the case. Archaeologists and historians of all type are realizing that man was not just a simple hunter-gatherer 5000 years ago, as still taught in most textbooks. Civilization is older than expected and possessing much greater wisdom than heretofore acknowledged.
As readers will recall, for thousands of years the Earth was in a descending phase, one that saw the decline of Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, the Mediterranean, Megalithic and Mesoamerican cultures, that culminated in the pits of the last Dark Age about 500AD. If this hypothesis is true we can expect to find great wisdom in very ancient cultures, an increasing number of archaeological sites older than expected, greater sophistication of very ancient cultures, etc.
Over the last 30 years this has proved to be the case. Archaeologists and historians of all type are realizing that man was not just a simple hunter-gatherer 5000 years ago, as still taught in most textbooks. Civilization is older than expected and possessing much greater wisdom than heretofore acknowledged.
http://www.loststarbook.com/loststarscience/index.php
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
http://www.thegreatyear.com/
Super Astrological Crank-like website? Is there only one web design firm for crank web sites? It looks just like this to me:
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/index.html
I'm old, I remember when the Internet was about the information. :-)
Claim: Like the Earth's (roughly!) 24,000 year precision cycle (which conventional scientists explain using the physics of, um, precision) Walter Cruttenden believes human civilization follows the same cycle, of 12,000 years of waxing and 12,000 years of waning. The cause: a dwarf star 10 times the distance to Pluto or a black hole 40 times the distance to Pluto. Walter Cruttenden believes this past civilization peaked (roughly) 12,000 BC -- which is much older than the pyramids.
As this is a physics website, I guess you are only going to find people who can tell you how very bad Walter Cruttenden's math and physics are. His archeology looks suspect, because I thought we had human relics back to 40,000 BC, or so.
But science is progressive, so I should provide explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
Sorry about the previous mispellings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
Sorry about the previous mispellings.
QUOTE (rpenner+Aug 31 2006, 11:28 PM)
But science is progressive, so I should provide explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
I don't see any realistic explanation of this phenomena ("lunisolar" precesion and angle of obliquity) at all. Frankly speaking, even Kepler's ellipse is not properly explained yet.
Orbital v is tangent on the trajectorie. We have two focuses. What is in the second one?
EM and gravitomagnetic part of interaction have to be included from the very beginning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
I don't see any realistic explanation of this phenomena ("lunisolar" precesion and angle of obliquity) at all. Frankly speaking, even Kepler's ellipse is not properly explained yet.
Orbital v is tangent on the trajectorie. We have two focuses. What is in the second one?
EM and gravitomagnetic part of interaction have to be included from the very beginning.
I believe that a Binary Sun Model explains a whole lot about solar-ellipitical (phenomenon) or, behavior.
I have had faith in this course
since I first heard of it.
If we are in an orbit fashioned with a companion sun, that causes us to behave in a fashion that becomes explainable only with more research,that does not mean that is is NOT a Fact.
I am glad that an article has come about which elicits an actual response....which my post failed to do. Gee~ thanks guys!
Be well. I will be reading your posts with interest and enthusiasm and an occasional under-educated comment, at times, of this you may be sure.
I have had faith in this course
since I first heard of it.If we are in an orbit fashioned with a companion sun, that causes us to behave in a fashion that becomes explainable only with more research,that does not mean that is is NOT a Fact.
I am glad that an article has come about which elicits an actual response....which my post failed to do. Gee~ thanks guys!
Be well. I will be reading your posts with interest and enthusiasm and an occasional under-educated comment, at times, of this you may be sure.
QUOTE
Walter Cruttenden believes human civilization follows the same cycle, of 12,000 years of waxing and 12,000 years of waning. The cause: a dwarf star 10 times the distance to Pluto or a black hole 40 times the distance to Pluto.
Perhaps you can save me some time and eye rolling; how exactly does a hypothetical companion to the Sun cause a 24000 year waxing and waning cycle of human civilization?
Thanks.
QUOTE (Pan+Oct 20 2006, 09:30 PM)
Perhaps you can save me some time and eye rolling; how exactly does a hypothetical companion to the Sun cause a 24000 year waxing and waning cycle of human civilization?
Hey, I'm just reporting what he writes on his multiple websites, I don't subscribe to this idea.
It's possible that the idea may be supported by some Indian religion, see http://www.aeongroup.com/precesn.htm, but I'm no expert on them.
On a physics standpoint there is no reason to believe that the period precession of the Earth's axis is caused be a solar companion. Since this precession is the sole empirical fact used on the web sites, it suggests that there is no general trend of evidence to support the claim. Furthermore existing physical theory suggests that the precession of the axis is not periodic, but quasiperiodic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
Finally, as Mars is further from the sun than Earth, it's precision rate ought to be even more dominated by "solar companion effects" and should closely match the precision rate of the Earth.
It does not.
Mars: –7576 +/- 35 milliarc seconds of angle per year ( or about 760 arcseconds per century)
Earth: 50287.9695 milliarc seconds of angle per year ( or about 5000 arcseconds per century)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/278/5344/1749.pdf
WM Folkner, CF Yoder, DN Yuan, EM Standish, and RA Preston "Interior Structure and Seasonal Mass Redistribution of Mars from Radio Tracking of Mars Pathfinder", Science 278 5 DECEMBER 1997 p 1749-1751
Hey, I'm just reporting what he writes on his multiple websites, I don't subscribe to this idea.
It's possible that the idea may be supported by some Indian religion, see http://www.aeongroup.com/precesn.htm, but I'm no expert on them.
On a physics standpoint there is no reason to believe that the period precession of the Earth's axis is caused be a solar companion. Since this precession is the sole empirical fact used on the web sites, it suggests that there is no general trend of evidence to support the claim. Furthermore existing physical theory suggests that the precession of the axis is not periodic, but quasiperiodic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precession_of_the_equinoxes
Finally, as Mars is further from the sun than Earth, it's precision rate ought to be even more dominated by "solar companion effects" and should closely match the precision rate of the Earth.
It does not.
Mars: –7576 +/- 35 milliarc seconds of angle per year ( or about 760 arcseconds per century)
Earth: 50287.9695 milliarc seconds of angle per year ( or about 5000 arcseconds per century)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/278/5344/1749.pdf
WM Folkner, CF Yoder, DN Yuan, EM Standish, and RA Preston "Interior Structure and Seasonal Mass Redistribution of Mars from Radio Tracking of Mars Pathfinder", Science 278 5 DECEMBER 1997 p 1749-1751
This is a documentary about the possibility of a Binary Suns Model that I first saw which lead me to believe that we live in such a system.
I am actually surprised that the web site doe's not speak more to this subject because that is the major focus of the film.
It is too simplified perhaps for this crowd but the layman will understand the film easily.
I especially appreciated the contributers to the doc....
including John Dering of S.A.R.A.
http://www.thegreatyear.com
((under resources see binary star evidence))
I am actually surprised that the web site doe's not speak more to this subject because that is the major focus of the film.
It is too simplified perhaps for this crowd but the layman will understand the film easily.
I especially appreciated the contributers to the doc....
including John Dering of S.A.R.A.
http://www.thegreatyear.com
((under resources see binary star evidence))
Absurd. The internet is filled with pseudoscience... every nutcase has the whole world as a stage. There is no demon star, or hidden binary star of the sun's. How do I know? Real astronomers, thousands and thousands of them, have been looking, measuring, creating atlases, recording the heavens, measuring motions for decades and decades. I'm not even including the hundreds of thousands of serious amateur astronomers (who are making almost as many discoveries as the university folks) using telescopes that have objectives from 2.4" to 60"... and bigger. And no one... not a single one of them... including myself (a serious amateur astronomer who did study astrophysics in college) believe there is any evidence AT ALL for a "secret hidden mysterious stellar companion". Give me a break... most all of this comes from people that haven't even passed freshmen physics in college. Can you spell "h-y-s-t-e-r-i-a"? Or... B-o-o-k S-a-l-e-s?
I would have thought that had there been a dark companion a long way from our sun, then there would have been some gravitational evidence for it. I think it would have affected not just the Kuiper belt but the Oort cloud too.
Sedna's orbit is said to be from 76 to 1,000 AU from the Sun. Not exactly a stable orbit.
Sedna's orbit is said to be from 76 to 1,000 AU from the Sun. Not exactly a stable orbit.
As we look at nature for the answers we always find that there is never one of anything, atoms to suns.
Including time, I'm afraid we are just another one of the civilization's between cycles.
In a couple of years they will find the sister to the sun and all the records of the past will make sense.
Had we chosen spirituality over science, wisdom over intelligence,and harmony over destruction you would have the answers to the questions that are to
befall you.
E=Mc2
Including time, I'm afraid we are just another one of the civilization's between cycles.
In a couple of years they will find the sister to the sun and all the records of the past will make sense.
Had we chosen spirituality over science, wisdom over intelligence,and harmony over destruction you would have the answers to the questions that are to
befall you.
E=Mc2
You know?
Thinking about this theory reminds me of a time not that long ago when people were trying to come to terms with continental drift.
Before we were sure about continental drift we had smart geologists that could see jigsaw earth and fit the continents together rather neatly Australia joining Africa and South America with Antarctica etc.
One Explanation for how this could all come about was that the earth must have been expanding. Hence, the expanding earth theory ( well before the expanding Universe theory cam into play).
Now I like that theory not because I think it has any truth in it but because it seems just radical enough to be a nice set of logic processes. The problem then is what would make the earth expand? At what rate would this be happening? where does all the matter come from? etc etc etc. All interesting problems in themselves and I think maybe a whole new branch of mathematics could be invented to explain it all (like string theory perhaps).
But companion stars way out there that effect our suns cycles etc without effecting things closer to a greater extent that is some trick.
Why didn't this guy use the suns drift through the Galaxy and our entry into and out of the Galactic arms of this wonderful Milky Way to explain changes in the suns behaviour and then explain changes in the behaviour of the sun on changes in Earths precession?
Oh hell who cares another crackpot to add to the list.
Probably used to live in Mu and travel to Atlantis via submarine too.
jeff
Thinking about this theory reminds me of a time not that long ago when people were trying to come to terms with continental drift.
Before we were sure about continental drift we had smart geologists that could see jigsaw earth and fit the continents together rather neatly Australia joining Africa and South America with Antarctica etc.
One Explanation for how this could all come about was that the earth must have been expanding. Hence, the expanding earth theory ( well before the expanding Universe theory cam into play).
Now I like that theory not because I think it has any truth in it but because it seems just radical enough to be a nice set of logic processes. The problem then is what would make the earth expand? At what rate would this be happening? where does all the matter come from? etc etc etc. All interesting problems in themselves and I think maybe a whole new branch of mathematics could be invented to explain it all (like string theory perhaps).
But companion stars way out there that effect our suns cycles etc without effecting things closer to a greater extent that is some trick.
Why didn't this guy use the suns drift through the Galaxy and our entry into and out of the Galactic arms of this wonderful Milky Way to explain changes in the suns behaviour and then explain changes in the behaviour of the sun on changes in Earths precession?
Oh hell who cares another crackpot to add to the list.
Probably used to live in Mu and travel to Atlantis via submarine too.
jeff
Where can one see a physcial representation of this binary amigo?
QUOTE (Guest_Bradley+Apr 17 2007, 03:43 AM)
Had we chosen spirituality over science, wisdom over intelligence,and harmony over destruction you would have the answers to the questions that are to
befall you.
E=Mc2
Name one worthwhile thing that religion has brought us.
Certainly not morals. That is an old christian lie.
befall you.
E=Mc2
Name one worthwhile thing that religion has brought us.
Certainly not morals. That is an old christian lie.
jeffsaunders. The Earth does not expand (not taking into account several thousand tons of stuff that falls from space each year). Continental drift is caused by erosion one side and building up the other side.
As a teen in the early sixties, we had a caravan at Leysdown, Kent, east coast, southern England. Year by year the cliffs crumbled taking houses with it. Ten years later I heard that a little post office a hundred feet from the edge had gone too. I remember reading several years ago how a large hotel had gone over the cliff as it's foundations vanished, east coast, north of England. The UK is building up on the west coast so it is "drifting" towards America at a very slow rate. Continental drift happened this way over hundreds of millions of years.
The sun like other stars does move about in it's orbit around the galaxy. It is heading in the direction of the star Vega at about 27 miles per second.
As a teen in the early sixties, we had a caravan at Leysdown, Kent, east coast, southern England. Year by year the cliffs crumbled taking houses with it. Ten years later I heard that a little post office a hundred feet from the edge had gone too. I remember reading several years ago how a large hotel had gone over the cliff as it's foundations vanished, east coast, north of England. The UK is building up on the west coast so it is "drifting" towards America at a very slow rate. Continental drift happened this way over hundreds of millions of years.
The sun like other stars does move about in it's orbit around the galaxy. It is heading in the direction of the star Vega at about 27 miles per second.
(as he shakes his head in wonder at some of the things people will believe.)
QUOTE (kaneda+Apr 17 2007, 06:10 PM)
The Earth does not expand (not taking into account several thousand tons of stuff that falls from space each year). Continental drift is caused by erosion one side and building up the other side.
Kaneda,
Yes I know although the details are not precisely as you describe. The point I was making is that people can come up with very interesting theories and still be completely wrong.
In the case of continental drift it is not so much erosion on one side and deposits on the other side.
Continental drift refers to continental plates in the earth that are effectively floating on the mantel. One plate either moves over or under or away from an adjacent plate. The actual point of contact is quite often below the ocean but can also be inland such as a Mountain Range.
A typical example given of India bashing into Asia ( the point of contact being in Nepal area).
Jeff
Kaneda,
Yes I know although the details are not precisely as you describe. The point I was making is that people can come up with very interesting theories and still be completely wrong.
In the case of continental drift it is not so much erosion on one side and deposits on the other side.
Continental drift refers to continental plates in the earth that are effectively floating on the mantel. One plate either moves over or under or away from an adjacent plate. The actual point of contact is quite often below the ocean but can also be inland such as a Mountain Range.
A typical example given of India bashing into Asia ( the point of contact being in Nepal area).
Jeff
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.