Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 34

Thread: Sirius / Sun binary relationship

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8

    Sirius / Sun binary relationship

    Is anyone here aware of some of the new information out which indicates the Sirius A&B, the Sun, and possibly a black hole, are all in orbit around each other and that it is this relationship that is responsible for the precession of equinoxes? Sumerians, Egyptians, Mayans all seemed aware of this relationship. Sumerians held in high regard a large number which turns out to the the number of seconds in approximately 6.2 million years, and it appears that this number is solar system constant which links up every period and conjunction of every body in our solar system.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,901
    Have you any sources? Sounds rather far fetched.

    Sirius is quite simply too far from us to be gravitationally bound to us and also too far away to be part of any three body system that has any stability. Sirius is also probably part of a totally different stellar association, which the Sun is not part of. In short - no. Precession is nicely explained by classical mechanics. For something like Sirius to be the cause we would then have to explain why our models of gravity and basic mechanics are not applicable to the Earth.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,924
    I've heard this woo on Ground Zero and coast to coast. There is nothing to it. Folks are also back on the Planet X Nibiru kick again, and there is nothing to that either. It would be the hottest talk on this board if it were true. Understand that those guests have books to sell.

    One of Coasts guests is McCanney. He's full of it too.
    http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ney/index.html
    http://dealingwithcreationisminastro...eationism.html

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,162
    Here is a thread that was posted in ATM four years ago. The proponent started with a very small observed variation in the precession rate over not more than a couple of centuries if I am not mistaken, and made a giant leap to a conclusion that the observed precession could not be caused by the gravitational action of the Sun and the Moon. I pointed out that the proposed orbital motion by itself would cause lots of parallax and a large proper motion of Sirius, but not the precession. He went on and on with a variety of math-based arguments that were pseudoscience at best and mere bluffing at worst. I persisted in challenging him as much as I did because it appeared to me that his arguments could look impressive to novices who do not have a good mental picture of the compound motions involved. He was suspended briefly for what the moderators considered unacceptable evasiveness, but he generally was polite, and the thread was a good exercise in challenging an ATMer with good science and doing it in a courteous manner.

    The thread is long closed but it is still available for reading if you so wish.

    http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...ary-Sun-Theory

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,775
    I agree with the above about this being very unlikely. Another thing to take into account as disproof is that the Sun is MUCH older than Sirius A, which will stop fusing long before it gets to the Sun's age.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,508
    Sirius is almost 9 light years away. That seems rather distant for there to be any significant gravitational interactions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    12,852
    Quote Originally Posted by AlAnF View Post
    Is anyone here aware of some of the new information out which indicates the Sirius A&B, the Sun, and possibly a black hole, are all in orbit around each other and that it is this relationship that is responsible for the precession of equinoxes?
    It sounds farfetched even to say that the sun and Sirius are orbiting one another. For example, there is another star, Procyon, that is a little bit further out than Sirius, and in generally the same direction, and which is about 1.4 times the mass of the sun. It is about twice as close to Sirius as Sirius is to the earth. So if Sirius is gravitationally bound to our sun, why wouldn't it be gravitationally bound to Procyon, which is larger and closer to it? Similarly, if the sun is orbiting Sirius, then what happens to the influence of Alpha Centauri, which is just half the distance? Surely it would completely disrupt the orbit I think. I think the whole exercise is quite difficult, because in fact the whole Milky Way is a body of gravitationally bound stars, and so I suppose you could say that the sun is gravitationally bound to all the other billions of stars.
    As above, so below

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,901
    I suppose you could say that the sun is gravitationally bound to all the other billions of stars.
    Not really because gravitationally bound has a very specific meaning. It does not mean just interacting gravitationally or just part of a larger gravitationally bound system. Essentially it means that the gravitational binding energy for the system has to be greater than or equal to the kinetic energy of any of the components.

    Examples:
    Sun-Earth
    Binding energy (in solar rest frame): GMm/r = 6.7e-11 * 2e30 * 6e24 / 1.5e11 = 5.2e55
    KE Sun = 0
    KE Earth = m v^2 / 2 = 6e24 * 3e8 / 2 = 9e32
    Bound.

    Sun-Sirius
    Binding energy (in solar rest frame): 6.7e11 * 2e30 * 4e30 / 8.17e16 = 6.6e33
    velocity of Sirius = sqrt( 6.5e7 + 2.9e8 ) ~ 1.9e4 (NB: I have taken the tangential velocity from a single paper, it may not be correct and I am too lazy to work it out properly because RA proper motions have a strange declination dependent correction that makes my brain hurt)
    KE Sirius: 4e30 * 3.5e8 /2 = 7.1e38
    Unbound.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,739
    i do not understand your arithmetic, ignoring the first minus sign, e55 OK but for sun-sirius I get using your numbers e55( Iguess the minus sign was right?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,901
    e is an exponent so 1e5 = 1 x 10^5 and 1e-5 = 1 x 10^(-5)

    I'm lazy, never learnt TeX


    Edit: Should have made it clear too that gravitational binding energy is traditionally negative, the reason I left off the minus sign is because what I am actually do is using the definition of bound such that Gravitational Binding Energy + Kinetic Energy < 0 for an object to be bound.For that to be the case - GBE > KE
    Last edited by Shaula; 2013-Aug-12 at 07:42 AM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Pontoise France
    Posts
    2,319
    Exactly my mind.But probably in better english.

    I did a fast computation : Sirius is 544,667 times farther from the sun than the Earth , and its mass ( Sirius A+B) is about 500,000 times that of Earth so its influence on the sun is about 600,000 times less than the Earth. That's not much , like a medium asteroid.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    2,126
    This Sirius binary idea comes from a Nineteenth Century Indian Yogi, Sri Yukteswar, in his book The Holy Science. Celestial mechanics can calculate the precession accurately using Newton, so the idea that precession is caused by a relation to some other star, apart from being purely false and mythical in origin, must set the torque of the sun and moon on the Earth's equatorial spare tire at zero, contrary to the observed consistency of the law of gravity.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    7,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    e is an exponent so 1e5 = 1 x 10^5 and 1e-5 = 1 x 10^(-5)

    I'm lazy, never learnt TeX


    Edit: Should have made it clear too that gravitational binding energy is traditionally negative, the reason I left off the minus sign is because what I am actually do is using the definition of bound such that Gravitational Binding Energy + Kinetic Energy < 0 for an object to be bound.For that to be the case - GBE > KE
    Yes sorry I understood the exponentials but not why one was 10^-11 and the other was 10^+11 but you used 10^-11 in both answers. No problem

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,901
    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Yes sorry I understood the exponentials but not why one was 10^-11 and the other was 10^+11 but you used 10^-11 in both answers. No problem
    Oops, you caught a typo! Sorry about that. Used the right number in the calculation, just not in writing it out. They both should have been -11.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    534
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Essentially it means that the gravitational binding energy for the system has to be greater than or equal to the kinetic energy of any of the components.
    What reference frame are you using to measure the kinetic energy of the two stars in your system? The Galactic Center? Our Sun? Relative to each other?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    6,901
    Solar rest frame as stated for the Binding Energy bit. I used classical approximations because of the intrinsic problems with working out energies in relativistic theories (and because the speeds were so low).

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,162
    Sirius has a proper motion of 1.21 arcseconds per year, which puts a lower bound of about 3 astronomical units per year on its velocity relative to the Sun. That is enough to escape from a separation of 10 or so AU, so at a distance of over 500,000 AU it definitely is unbound.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,664
    Sheesh! And all this time I've been thinking we were part of the Centaurus system.

    Maybe we could invoke the unobserved black hole 'Barycenter' to make the Sirius combo work.

    Not siriusly, John M.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    819
    Sirius is probably important to ancient Earth cultures because it's one of the brightest stars around and appears when it's time to plant crops.

    And I do believe that AC3 system is going to get really, really close to the Solar-System in the next million years or so.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,775
    Quote Originally Posted by Githyanki View Post
    ... I do believe that AC3 system is going to get really, really close to the Solar-System in the next million years or so.
    In about 30,000 years, Alpha Centauri will be about 3.25 light years away from us. That will be its closest distance.
    BTW, Barnard's Star will be closer to us than that in about 9000 years.

    For better accuracy about how close other stars will get, I suggest waiting a six or seven years for the Gaia survey to get done.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    289
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    In about 30,000 years, Alpha Centauri will be about 3.25 light years away from us. That will be its closest distance.
    BTW, Barnard's Star will be closer to us than that in about 9000 years.

    For better accuracy about how close other stars will get, I suggest waiting a six or seven years for the Gaia survey to get done.
    This opens up interesting possibilities, I think, for asteroids and comets to be sent our way as the Oort Cloud and Kuiper Belt-type objects around the stars in question are potentially upset by gravitational perturbances from our system and vice versa. That is, I can imagine the more distant objects orbiting our star and any coming very near to ours being perturbed enough to find their way into our inner solar system as these stars draw near to each other.

    I'm not familiar with the mathematics behind it, however, and so I can only speak of the merest potential. If there are objects well beyond Pluto, though, as current thinking at least suggests there are, then I can only imagine that Barnard's Star and Alpha Centauri would have similar objects at a similar distance, and that those and the ones around our sun would be all too easily influenced by the gravity of the other star as it gets to be as close as a mere 3 1/4 or even fewer light years distant.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    10,924
    Gilese 710 is the biggie--might go right into the Oort.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    21,775
    Quote Originally Posted by publiusr View Post
    Gilese 710 is the biggie--might go right into the Oort.
    Gliese 710 will make its closest approach in 1.4 million years. We could develop a lot of technology before then.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,138
    Well, that might mean the clock on humanity is set at 1.4 million years, before we are pounded to smithereens by dislodged comets. But I sure wish I thought that was the worst extinction risk we face in that timeframe!

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    1
    At https://magneticnature.wordpress.com...-1/#comment-52 there is a good point made: "Sirius is responsible for Earth’s orbital eccentricity since it is known that Earth’s perihelion/aphelion is in alignment with Sirius. The same way the Moons perihelion is directly related to its position relative to the Sun and the Earth. When the Moon is full, being in direct opposition to the Sun is when it is closest to Earth. This has never changed since the beginning of time. So it is safe to relate Sirius and Earth’s orbital eccentricity..... Sirius reaches its highest point (~16.5 degrees above the horizon) in the sky during aphelion and is exactly due-south at midnight. During perihelion, Sirius is exactly due-south at mid-day in its lowest position ~16.5 degrees below the horizon. Geometrically speaking, it is safe to assume, this is the case."

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    1,775
    The information in the preceding message makes no sense. Sirius reaches exactly the same height above the horizon every day of the year. Some days, this culmination occurs at night, some days at sunset, some days at dawn, some days at noon. The statement about the Moon is also incorrect: the distance between the Earth and Moon is not at a minimum when the Moon is full. Today (Sun, May 27), for example, the Moon is about 398,000 km from the Earth; two days from now (Tue, May 29), when the Moon is full, it will be about 403,000 km from Earth.

    Can we mark the preceding post somehow as "full of mis-information" so that other readers aren't misled?

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,162
    It is true that the Moon's distance at perigee is closer when it is also in conjunction or opposition with the Sun than at in-between times. That is because its orbit is severely perturbed by the Sun's gravity. Sirius is so far away that any corresponding perturbation of Earth's orbit is negligible.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,814
    What is worse is the title of that 4 August 2013 blog article: "How Our Sun Orbits Sirius"! My guess it was this crank blog article that inspired this thread started on 11 August 2013.
    The author attributes previous observations of Sirius as appearing red to the Doppler effect of Sirius moving away from the Earth. They ignore that Sirius was also described as blue and white! An argument from ignorance or incredibility about the precession of the equinoxes ("The odds of this occurring naturally because of gravity are astronomical to say the least").

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Clark View Post
    At https://magneticnature.wordpress.com...-1/#comment-52 there is a good point made: "Sirius is responsible for Earth’s orbital eccentricity since it is known that Earth’s perihelion/aphelion is in alignment with Sirius. The same way the Moons perihelion is directly related to its position relative to the Sun and the Earth. When the Moon is full, being in direct opposition to the Sun is when it is closest to Earth. This has never changed since the beginning of time. So it is safe to relate Sirius and Earth’s orbital eccentricity..... Sirius reaches its highest point (~16.5 degrees above the horizon) in the sky during aphelion and is exactly due-south at midnight. During perihelion, Sirius is exactly due-south at mid-day in its lowest position ~16.5 degrees below the horizon. Geometrically speaking, it is safe to assume, this is the case."
    You are new here, so let me give you some advice. The internet is a sea of caveat lector, that is, let the reader beware. Anybody and his uncle can dream up pseudoscientific junk and post it without proper vetting by competent scientists. That website you linked looks even more flimsy than that one I challenged at length back in 2009.

    The gravitational action that causes the precession of Earth's spin axis is proportional to the inverse cube of the distance to the perturbing body. Thus the action of Sirius is on the order of about 1018 times weaker than what the Sun and the Moon are doing. Negligible. Zilch.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    26,138
    Anyone interested in understanding how the Earth's orbit really works should google "apsidal precession." Once you understand apsidal precession, you will understand why claims that the aphelion/perihelion orientation is controlled by Sirius is just complete baloney. Anyone who chooses instead to not understand apsida precession should simply expect to not understand the orientation of the Earth's orbit, which is fine, but don't believe other people who also don't understand it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •