PDA

View Full Version : Question on redshifts in Cruttenden's Binary Sun model



Jim Smith Chiapas
2010-Apr-17, 02:35 AM
c

astromark
2010-Apr-17, 04:52 AM
Good to see you have done some research and have sort of pre answered your own question... and Welcome.
On reading of this I to rushed of and read some of the background to this... and yes I have drawn a conclusion that it is quite wrong to think that during the recorded history of humanity Sirius has in any way changed. Its Woo woo stuff. It can not be concluded that Sirius is our suns binary partner. No. From the information available Our sun, Sol does not have a binary partner.
While Sirius does appear blue. My Intuition suggests that Antares was the red star witnessed.

EDG
2010-Apr-17, 05:16 AM
Sirius and Sol would be orbiting their barycenter, so when they are moving at 0.8c relative to each other, Sol would have a high velocity not only with respect to Sirius, but to the barycenter, and therefore to almost every other star. I don't know how to calculate it that velocity, especially since the Sirius system outweighs Sol 3:1. I know the velocity would be less than 0.8c, but I would guess that its effect upon the observed color of all those other stars would still be noticeable. In other words, I think it should be impossible to redshift only Sirius' light in Cruttenden's model.

Can anyone show me where I've gone wrong?

Well, Sol and Sirius aren't orbiting eachother for one thing - they're separated by 8.6 lightyears, way further than any companion can orbit another star. Plus, if we can be gravitationally bound to Sirius at that distance then we'd also have to be gravitatioanlly bound to the Alpha Centauri system (which is closer), and we're not. We also know the proper motion of Sirius relative to Sol, and it's not 0.8c. (it's not even physically possible for any stellar object to orbit another one at speeds of 0.8c). So, the whole premise is wrong really :)

Hornblower
2010-Apr-17, 10:10 AM
While it is inappropriate to speculate on Mr. Cruttenden's motive for pushing his idea, I remain completely confident that his idea is pure rubbish. I contributed some detailed remarks in the linked threads.

Jim Smith Chiapas
2010-Apr-17, 08:46 PM
c

astromark
2010-Apr-17, 09:44 PM
Your point is accurate. If we can not find this partner of Sol... and we have now a impressive ability to look and detect. We have NOT the slightest clue as to a binary companion of our sun. That also if this solar system was to be found receding away from Sirius, yes that whole hemisphere would look reddish and the other blue... Its not. They aren't, and you know that.
I find it exasperating to find that those whom might know better would be proponents of such rubbish for money... what hope humanity ?

Robert Tulip
2010-Apr-18, 01:27 AM
I found your site, and read through these earlier threads on the subject (which were very helpful):

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/90705-Binary-Sun-Theory
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/91430-Help-please
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/57695-Sun-revolves-around-another-Star-Planet
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/101729-Lunisolar-precession-and-changing-seasons,

Hi Jim. Another thread, where Celestial Mechanic makes the "rubbish, pure and simple" comment that Cruttenden quotes on his website, is at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/89020-Binary-Sun-Theory?highlight=binary+sun+theory

Ken G
2010-Apr-18, 02:12 AM
“If Sol were moving away from Sirius fast enough to make Sirius look red, then almost every other star in that side of the sky would look reddish, too, and almost every star in the other side of the sky would look bluish.”

My question is whether that statement is accurate.Unfortunately it is very hard to categorically refute anything a woo-woo can say-- if the laws of physics can be suspended, then virtually anything is possible, including a red-to-blue turning Sirius. The claim could be made that it is Sirius that is changing velocity, not Sol, and then no other star's color would be affected. Of course, Sirius is more massive than the Sun, so it's hard to explain why it would be the one changing velocity, but that's no harder to explain than how the speed could be so absurdly large when the gravity is well known to be extremely small over that distance. Also, the timescale is preposterous-- stellar orbits on light-year scales would take about a billion years if they were even remotely possible given all the other gravity sources around. What can you really say? The claim is completely at odds with the physics of orbital mechanics. But if our trip to the Moon was a hoax, who cares about orbital mechanics anyway?

Jim Smith Chiapas
2010-Apr-18, 03:05 AM
T

George
2010-Apr-18, 05:26 AM
Knowing the best approach to reach your audience is important. He looks charismatic but he doesn't seem to have much in the way of credentials, though I count surfing of greater significance than some. :)

Is there really much credit to Cruttenden's ability to make such claims to discredit? He may boast he has been on PBS and CNBC, as well as, spoken at a few universities, but I see no list of publications in reputable scientific journals. As Sagan popularized, "Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence".

Has he found one professional astronomer suggesting his idea has merit?

Due to its proximity to us, there is extrodinary evidence regarding Sirius, but it is counter to the idea that we are gravitationally bound to Sirius.
Astronomers know its:
Temperature (which determines color) of both stars
Radial velocity (-7.6 km/sec), properr motion (RA: −546.05 mas/yr; Dec.: −1223.14 mas/yr)
Parallax (379.21 1.58 mas)
Distance (8.6 0.04 ly)
Size (Radius of 1.711 times that of the Sun for SiriusA)
Mass (combined mass of 3x that of the Sun)
Spectrum, etc.

As mentioned above, the Sun experiences stronger gravitational attraction from Alpha Centauri, almost 3x as much.

The time it would take Sirius and the Sun to collide if they were set alone in some isolated segment of the universe and initially not movng relative to one another is about 64 million years. [Uh oh, do I hear dinosaur disaster? *wink* ug]

Also, assuming he is serious about Sirius, though I saw no mention of Sirius on his website, then he should be stating that it is a trinary star system since Sirius is already a well known binary.

You might have some luck throwing in hard data that counters the few hard facts that he uses and abuses.

Jim Smith Chiapas
2010-Apr-18, 02:42 PM
T

George
2010-Apr-19, 01:16 AM
By the way, if you ever get the time I'd really appreciate it if you'd look over my Amazon review (http://www.amazon.com/2012-Story-Fallacies-Intriguing-History/product-reviews/1585427667/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_pop_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar) of John Major Jenkins' book The 2012 Story, and the two comments I appended to it. I've avoided the 2012 hooplah. I've been to marvelous Palenque and I respect the remarkable Mayan astronomy but only in the context of their time. I haven't seen anything to convince me a prescience exists in their calendar, though I'm not really looking. People tend to believe what they want to believe, which works very favorably for Hollywood and other showmen.

You will find many here that will be happy to elaborate on any one of those alignment claims. Simply list them. If you like debunking, you've come to right place. :)

Jim Smith Chiapas
2010-Jun-08, 10:10 PM
T

Robert Tulip
2010-Jun-09, 12:25 PM
Hello Jim, thanks for the update. I enjoyed reading your Amazon reviews of Cruttenden and Jenkins and have clicked yes I found them helpful. Cruttenden gets an average of 4.5 stars, but you gave him one star, and so far 1 (me) of 4 people have found your review helpful. He is obviously adept at speaking to his fan base. If your review is "less direct" it would be interesting for you to tell us what you really think.

I personally find the mythology around the Golden Age, the Great Year and the precession of the equinox intriguing. So I was dismayed to watch Cruttenden's video 'The Great Year' where the scientific explanation is denied. I agree completely with your comment ""being open to other possibilities", even when those possibilities go against all evidence...is a very unfortunate attitude". It is totally pointless and rather dangerous and unethical to promote ideas that stand in demonstrable conflict with scientific observation.

Re Jenkins, I happened to be looking at an astounding woo woo survivalist forum 2012forum.com where Jenkins is pilloried for his 1998 loss of faith. Your description of his ducking and weaving for different audiences is a classic description of the mode of thinking that starts from the conclusions (Mayan shaman supermen) and then starts to fall apart as it finds the evidence does not support the original elegant dream.

Jim Smith Chiapas
2010-Jun-09, 07:37 PM
H

Ken G
2010-Jun-09, 09:29 PM
Well put. The Maya astronomers were likely far better critical thinkers, for all their mythologies, than the average person of today-- sadly. But ultimately, I don't think woo-woo thinking is really a breakdown in intelligence itself, but rather a breakdown in prioritizing intelligence over what seems "neeto keen".