PDA

View Full Version : Is It CW Leonis or Not?



vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 05:02 AM
I was just browsing Sky-map.org and looking at what some say is Nibiru... That one image that I even always claim to be CW Leonis because I asked the question years ago on BAUT and received that answer.

Now, interestingly enough Sky-map.org I think has changed the classification of this object. It used to indicate R Leonis (still there) and CW Leonis (I think, or perhaps the abbrevated name for it).

And now is it says "TYC 834-1115-1".... "TYC 834-138-1".... and "USNOA2 0975-06336812".

Still CW Leonis?

Resources:

http://sky-map.org/ --- 9h 47m 57.0s 13║ 16' 45.5"

I now notice there are multiple object most likely behind this thing... But I still don't see CW Leonis listed on there where these 3 things are.

Also if you type CW Leonis into the Search box it still takes you right to the same spot.

Gillianren
2011-Jul-05, 05:52 AM
I was just browsing Sky-map.org and looking at what everyone calls Nibiru...

"Everyone"?

chrlzs
2011-Jul-05, 09:15 AM
Before I would even think about doing anything to investigate this, I have some questions for you, vasotech.

I was just browsing Sky-map.org
Just browsing, eh?

hmmmm....


and looking at what some say is Nibiru...
Wait a minute.. - how did you know that you had 'just browsed' to a location that everyone someone thought was a mythical planet? I am guessing that you were not just browsing at all, but had, on the basis of something you haven't declared, gone to that location (or just clicked a link) to look. (BTW, your link is not valid.)

I'm afraid that raises some issues with me. First, why not give the whole story? Is it because you don't wish to refer to your 'source'? Is the source perhaps suspect or .. embarrassing?

What is your opinion of the source? Have you tried to investigate it yourself? If not, why not?
Will you learn anything much if we just tell you the answers?

I'm not trying to be (over) difficult, but please consider that lots of ridiculous claims are made on the Interweb every second - should learned folk at BAUT (or anywhere) be expected to respond to any of them? Does it occur to you that if we entertain this stuff, in a way we help to promote it.. - next thing there will be postings at tinfoilhat forums saying "Those folk at BAUT have gone to great lengths to try to explain it away - you can tell this is something big!!!"

And I was going to give a few hints, but I think all I will say is - why do you expect to 'see' CW Leonis in whatever it is you are looking at?

AGN Fuel
2011-Jul-05, 10:05 AM
Have you changed your catalogue in your programme? 'TYC' indicates a Tycho Catalogue listing and 'USNO' indicates the US Navy Observatory catalogue.

Any given star can have many identifiers, depending on which catalogue is being sourced.

Daggerstab
2011-Jul-05, 05:40 PM
I was just browsing Sky-map.org and looking at what some say is Nibiru... That one image that I even always claim to be CW Leonis because I asked the question years ago on BAUT and received that answer.

Now, interestingly enough Sky-map.org I think has changed the classification of this object. It used to indicate R Leonis (still there) and CW Leonis (I think, or perhaps the abbrevated name for it).

And now is it says "TYC 834-1115-1".... "TYC 834-138-1".... and "USNOA2 0975-06336812".

Still CW Leonis?

Resources:

http://sky-map.org/ --- 9h 47m 57.0s 13║ 16' 45.5"

I now notice there are multiple object most likely behind this thing... But I still don't see CW Leonis listed on there where these 3 things are.

Also if you type CW Leonis into the Search box it still takes you right to the same spot.

Yes, it is the same star.

For the people who are puzzled: vasotech has switched the background to the IRAS (see this view (http://www.sky-map.org/?ra=9.799273&de=13.278793999999989&zoom=6&show_grid=1&show_constellation_lines=1&show_constellation_boundaries=1&show_const_names=0&show_galaxies=1&show_box=1&box_ra=9.799273&box_de=13.278794&box_width=50&box_height=50&img_source=IRAS)). As it is an infrared image and CW Leonis (or its dust cloud) is quite bright in infrared, its image has "bloomed". vasotech is trying to identify it by hovering the mouse pointer over the bloom, but the software used by Sky-Map.org defines stars like point-like objects and identifies them by the coordinates of their centers. As the bloom covers much more than the original star, hovering inside the white part of the image finds other stars.

Here's a link to a view zoomed in on CW Leonis in the visible spectrum (the DSS2 mosaic) (http://www.sky-map.org/?ra=9.799273&de=13.278793999999989&zoom=11&show_grid=1&show_constellation_lines=1&show_constellation_boundaries=1&show_const_names=0&show_galaxies=1&show_box=1&box_ra=9.799273&box_de=13.278794&box_width=50&box_height=50&img_source=DSS2). Note that this time the white square covers much smaller area - if you switch the view to IRAS, the whole screen will be full of white bloom.

Here's another link, to CW Leonis in the SimPlay browser (http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/SimPlay/#target=V*%20CW%20Leo&lp=true). Click on its name in the list to get the SIMBAD entry.

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 07:11 PM
Before I would even think about doing anything to investigate this, I have some questions for you, vasotech.

Just browsing, eh?

hmmmm....


Wait a minute.. - how did you know that you had 'just browsed' to a location that everyone someone thought was a mythical planet? I am guessing that you were not just browsing at all, but had, on the basis of something you haven't declared, gone to that location (or just clicked a link) to look. (BTW, your link is not valid.)

I'm afraid that raises some issues with me. First, why not give the whole story? Is it because you don't wish to refer to your 'source'? Is the source perhaps suspect or .. embarrassing?

What is your opinion of the source? Have you tried to investigate it yourself? If not, why not?
Will you learn anything much if we just tell you the answers?

I'm not trying to be (over) difficult, but please consider that lots of ridiculous claims are made on the Interweb every second - should learned folk at BAUT (or anywhere) be expected to respond to any of them? Does it occur to you that if we entertain this stuff, in a way we help to promote it.. - next thing there will be postings at tinfoilhat forums saying "Those folk at BAUT have gone to great lengths to try to explain it away - you can tell this is something big!!!"

And I was going to give a few hints, but I think all I will say is - why do you expect to 'see' CW Leonis in whatever it is you are looking at?

Really? I've been telling that this is CW Leonis for years using the Data I learned at BAUT.

I have investigated the source and up until recently the source on Sky Map has mentioned it as CW Leonis, or the code name which I then was able to identify as CW Leonis using Wikipedia.

Now that name has changed and I am confused about why they would change this, when it disproves the whole Nibiru rubbish.

I am not someone that's going to sit here and pretend like this is something BIG because BAUT took a long time to explain it to me, that is NOT my angle AT ALL.

I don't want this stuff to happen my friend, I have a business here that I want to grow and run for my life, but I just have a feeling that's not going to be possible..

So many things happening in the world... Lars Von Trier's quoted "As the 2012 apocalypse is upon us, it is time to prepare for a cinematic last supper." at the party for his upcoming movie called 'Melancholia" which is regarding a planet coming from behind the Sun and threatening Earth.

When you mix that with the Russians building 5,000 bomb shelters, extreme weather and earthquakes lately, the USA spending like there's "No tomorrow".. The Mayan prophecies, the Hopi prophecies, all the information circling about moving into the 4th "Density"... etc etc etc.

Worries me but if only the powers that be on this planet cared more about our species then they do money... We probably wouldn't be faced with this situation.

The only we can do now is wait... If this supposed Planet, which is not a "brown dwarf" as these people promote, I'm sure it is part of a divine plan and we shall live on in the energy world.

The only thing that makes much sense is to say ... "We live in interesting times".

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-05, 07:24 PM
When you mix that with the Russians building 5,000 bomb shelters, extreme weather and earthquakes lately, the USA spending like there's "No tomorrow".. The Mayan prophecies, the Hopi prophecies, all the information circling about moving into the 4th "Density"... etc etc etc.

Yeah...when you "mix" all that garbage, you get garbage.


Worries me but if only the powers that be on this planet cared more about our species then they do money... We probably wouldn't be faced with this situation.

What "situation"?


If this supposed Planet, which is not a "brown dwarf" as these people promote, I'm sure it is part of a divine plan and we shall live on in the energy world.

...or the more rational explanation, that there is no "divine plan", and everything will go on pretty much as it normally has.


The only thing that makes much sense is to say ... "We live in interesting times".

When have we not lived in "interesting times"?...these "times" are no different.

pzkpfw
2011-Jul-05, 07:26 PM
vasotech, you started this thread claiming to have an innocent question, but again show that really you are still falling for the "end of the World" hoopla. As such these are going to be treated as your claims and you will need to answer questions put to you, on penalty of infraction. (Or, withdraw your claims). BAUT does not exist for the purpose of you reminding us how worried you are about something imaginary.

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 07:42 PM
Apologizes for making these crazy claims. I guess I have been influence by the Kook websites a bit too much lately.

Probably should stop reading these sites and get information from real scientists like you guys...

Or least to keep my sanity.

Thank you for always giving credible information BAUT. I appreciate it.

LaurelHS
2011-Jul-05, 09:31 PM
So many things happening in the world... Lars Von Trier's quoted "As the 2012 apocalypse is upon us, it is time to prepare for a cinematic last supper." at the party for his upcoming movie called 'Melancholia" which is regarding a planet coming from behind the Sun and threatening Earth.
This could have been a joke. And even if he was serious about believing in a 2012 apocalypse, so what? What makes him a credible source on this subject? He's a film director and a screenwriter, not a scientist.

Strange
2011-Jul-05, 10:09 PM
Lars Von Trier's quoted "As the 2012 apocalypse is upon us, it is time to prepare for a cinematic last supper." at the party for his upcoming movie called 'Melancholia" which is regarding a planet coming from behind the Sun and threatening Earth.

The man may (or may not) be a great film maker but he is not some sort of oracle. He said even more outrageous things that got him banned from Cannes. So I think you can safely disregard everything he says (even about his own films, as far as I can tell).


When you mix that with the Russians building 5,000 bomb shelters

I bet that's not true.


extreme weather and earthqakes lately

That's definitely not true.


the USA spending like there's "No tomorrow"..

That's not new.


The Mayan prophecies

No such thing


the Hopi prophecies

No such thing


all the information circling about moving into the 4th "Density"

Whatever that is supposed to mean, it is bogus


etc etc etc.

bogus, bogus, bogus

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 10:20 PM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJE2zoVCkA

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 10:22 PM
This could have been a joke. And even if he was serious about believing in a 2012 apocalypse, so what? What makes him a credible source on this subject? He's a film director and a screenwriter, not a scientist.

I agree, but I was thinking more from a "Millionaire In The Know" perspective.

Strange
2011-Jul-05, 10:26 PM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.

Ah, YouTube. It must be true then. (I'm not even going to bother watching it)

Garrison
2011-Jul-05, 10:28 PM
Now that name has changed and I am confused about why they would change this, when it disproves the whole Nibiru rubbish.

I am not someone that's going to sit here and pretend like this is something BIG because BAUT took a long time to explain it to me, that is NOT my angle AT ALL.

But you do post as if this is something big, indeed you have done so repeatedly and you certainly seem to assume that something is happening, that there is something real out there. take this statement for example:


The only we can do now is wait... If this supposed Planet, which is not a "brown dwarf" as these people promote, I'm sure it is part of a divine plan and we shall live on in the energy world.


You say it is a supposed planet, and then make an assertion about its nature. On what basis do you rule out the claims that it is a brown dwarf while apparently being willing to entertain the notion of some rogue planet? Frankly I would like you to clearly and concisely state exactly what your view is and be prepared to defend it. If you don't wish to do so perhaps you could forgo anymore 'What do you think of this?' threads as I think it is very clear what other posters think. Nibiru is a cocktail of scam and delusion, no large planetary body could enter the inner solar system without being obvious to anyone with a decent amateur telescope. If you believe otherwise please explain why?

Garrison
2011-Jul-05, 10:31 PM
I agree, but I was thinking more from a "Millionaire In The Know" perspective.

Really? I'm afraid that kind of thing only works on film, in the real world all the US governments secrets keep popping up on Wikileaks...

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 10:31 PM
Ah, YouTube. It must be true then. (I'm not even going to bother watching it)

It's from Russia Today...

Strange
2011-Jul-05, 10:32 PM
I agree, but I was thinking more from a "Millionaire In The Know" perspective.

Why would a film maker be "in the know" (even if he is a millionaire) more than scientists?

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 10:32 PM
Really? I'm afraid that kind of thing only works on film, in the real world all the US governments secrets keep popping up on Wikileaks...

Yea, and not to mention... Why is he still making films if the Apocalypse is here? Makes no sense, I just did some additional research and it turns out that he's actually using that statement from the Mayan mythology which he believes in... So, I guess he's not "In the know" .. Just potentially delusional just like a lot of other kooky film makers.

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 10:33 PM
Why would a film maker be "in the know" (even if he is a millionaire) more than scientists?

True enough, if the Apocalypse was actually going to happen... It seems they would be contacting real Scientists... After all, what the heck good would a FILM MAKER do after the Apocalypse when there's no one to watch films? Good point.

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-05, 10:34 PM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.


Real or not, what would be the relevance? What do bomb shelters have to do with rogue planet claims? As opposed to, say, bombs?

Garrison
2011-Jul-05, 10:34 PM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJE2zoVCkA

You know what's interesting? When I Google about those 500 bomb shelters the only places referencing it are are conspiracy sites, almost as if it weren't a real news story at all.

Garrison
2011-Jul-05, 10:36 PM
Yea, and not to mention... Why is he still making films if the Apocalypse is here? Makes no sense, I just did some additional research and it turns out that he's actually using that statement from the Mayan mythology which he believes in... So, I guess he's not "In the know" .. Just potentially delusional just like a lot of other kooky film makers.

And are you planning to respond to the questions in my post prior to that one?

Strange
2011-Jul-05, 10:39 PM
It's from Russia Today...

This Russia Today:

Critics have challenged the neutrality of RT's reporting and suggested that the channel has provided a platform to conspiracy theorists. A September–October 2010 article in the Columbia Journalism Review called Russia Today a Kremlin propaganda outlet featuring "fringe-dwelling experts" and "was just a way to stick it to the U.S. from behind the fašade of legitimate newsgathering."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_and_criticisms_of_RT#Allegations_of_ supporting_conspiracy_theories

Sounds like YouTube is the perfect market for it: an audience who will believe everything they say, no matter how daft.

LaurelHS
2011-Jul-05, 10:39 PM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJE2zoVCkA

Assuming this is true, I'd just like to point out that Russia has experienced some horrific terrorist attacks in the last few years and had a war with Georgia; maybe this has something to do with why they're building bomb shelters.

vasotech
2011-Jul-05, 11:35 PM
So, out of all scientists on the forum... There is not anyone who that thinks there is any crazy stuff about to happen in Oct/Nov/Dec this year with Elenin,
or 2012 with "Nibiru" or Energy wave or Binary star, etc etc etc?

Of course we could discover Nibiru... or Tyche maybe a few years down the road...

Perhaps we have already, but Right Now there is not sign of some huge planet that will be here by 2012?

I imagine that most of you stay up to date on the latest findings and continue to do your own research?

Also Do any of you have a good telescope that you use to look into space often?

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 12:28 AM
But you do post as if this is something big, indeed you have done so repeatedly and you certainly seem to assume that something is happening, that there is something real out there. take this statement for example:



You say it is a supposed planet, and then make an assertion about its nature. On what basis do you rule out the claims that it is a brown dwarf while apparently being willing to entertain the notion of some rogue planet? Frankly I would like you to clearly and concisely state exactly what your view is and be prepared to defend it. If you don't wish to do so perhaps you could forgo anymore 'What do you think of this?' threads as I think it is very clear what other posters think. Nibiru is a cocktail of scam and delusion, no large planetary body could enter the inner solar system without being obvious to anyone with a decent amateur telescope. If you believe otherwise please explain why?

I guess the only thing that makes it hard to not believe is the Sumerian texts and other mythologies describing a planet like body.

Now I do realize that in all rational sense there can be no brown dwarf near us because it's gravity would've already perturbed Saturn a great distance and that has not happened.

That is why I'm more inclined to believe that it's a giant planet instead of a failed star...

But even then I just don't see how it's possible to go undetected unless it can move rapidly from some sort of advanced technology.

Bah, the truth is only time will tell.

Thanks for the information guys.

Vaso

Swift
2011-Jul-06, 12:29 AM
So, out of all scientists on the forum... There is not anyone who that thinks there is any crazy stuff about to happen in Oct/Nov/Dec this year with Elenin,or 2012 with "Nibiru" or Energy wave or Binary star, etc etc etc?
I can only speak for myself, but no, the only crazy stuff that will happen in 2012 will be human beings' fault - crazy stuff like elections and hot dog eating contests.


Also Do any of you have a good telescope that you use to look into space often?
You should check out the stuff in the astrophotography section of the forum (http://www.bautforum.com/forumdisplay.php/55-Astrophotography) more often. These guys do some amazing work, taking beautiful pictures of the sky. If there was some giant rogue planet out there, they would have seen it long ago.

If you want to find "evidence" of some coming doom, you can always do so. I don't know what it is about humans, but there is someone always ranting about the end of the world is coming, and now the Internet has given them the biggest soap box on the biggest street corner in history. But just since my time on BAUT I've seen about 3 dooms come and go. Like kidney stones, these too shall pass. If you want to drive yourself crazy, keep exploring YouTube and other crazy websites, you'll find lots of madness there.

Swift
2011-Jul-06, 12:32 AM
I guess the only thing that makes it hard to not believe is the Sumerian texts and other mythologies describing a planet like body.
The Greeks described the Sun as the wheel of a giant chariot driven across the sky by a god. They even describe an incident where things went awry and the chariot went off course and almost burned the Earth. Why should I be more concerned about Sumerian mythology than Greek mythology?

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-06, 12:38 AM
I guess the only thing that makes it hard to not believe is the Sumerian texts and other mythologies describing a planet like body.


Where do they do that? I assume you're not talking about seeing planets known to be visible to the naked eye.

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-06, 12:57 AM
By the way, that definitely was meant as a direct question.

Nowhere Man
2011-Jul-06, 01:05 AM
But even then I just don't see how it's possible to go undetected unless it can move rapidly from some sort of advanced technology.
Have you considered that it might be undetected because... it's not there?

Fred

Selenite
2011-Jul-06, 02:32 AM
Apologizes for making these crazy claims. I guess I have been influence by the Kook websites a bit too much lately.

Probably should stop reading these sites and get information from real scientists like you guys...

Or least to keep my sanity.

Thank you for always giving credible information BAUT. I appreciate it.

You remind me a bit of the stereotypical hypochondriac. The doctors keep sending you home with a fit bill of health, but then you start feeling a twinge here and a palpitation there, and in no time you're convinced that you are at death's door again. In this case, the twitches and palpitations are these fringe websites and YouTube videos you can't seem to learn to ignore. Given the crushing illiteracy out there in basic astronomy these days, remind yourself that any competent pitchman or flim-flam artist can crank out a video claiming that the world is gonna end and he will get takers. Don't be taken.

Relax vasotech. Odds are you're gonna live a full life. One full of real worries. :D

AGN Fuel
2011-Jul-06, 02:39 AM
I guess the only thing that makes it hard to not believe is the Sumerian texts and other mythologies describing a planet like body.

My wife describes me as having a planet like body. But she does cook such beautiful desserts. :shifty:


Now I do realize that in all rational sense there can be no brown dwarf near us because it's gravity would've already perturbed Saturn a great distance and that has not happened.

Yes.


That is why I'm more inclined to believe that it's a giant planet instead of a failed star...

Exactly the same problem exists. Gravitational perturbation (easily apparent) will occur in either situation.


But even then I just don't see how it's possible to go undetected unless it can move rapidly from some sort of advanced technology.

Does anyone else get a mental image of a cartoon giant planet sneaking up, ready to leap out at an unsuspecting Earth, a la Elmer Fudd? "Be vewwy quiet... I'm pwanning the Apocawypse". :shhh:


Bah, the truth is only time will tell.

Tell what? The idea is complete nonsense, dreamt up by people either sitting in their basement who can't believe their luck that they now have the means to deliver their crackpot ideas to a global audience, or those who have hit upon an easy means of parting a number of uncritical people from their cash.

I don't need time to tell me that the world will still be turning in 2013. I also don't need time to know that these people, without any sense of shame or embarrassment, will have set a new target to panic about by then .

Swift
2011-Jul-06, 02:49 AM
vasotech,

Some time, Google "Nancy Lieder Planet X" or "Zetatalk". She started the whole Nibiru/Planet X thing back in 1995. Her earliest predictions of it destroying Earth were a target of 2003, and they were advanced to future dates after 2003 came and went.

I will warn you that you will never look at Starburst candy or dogs quite the same way. ;)

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 03:16 AM
Ya I read that junk a while back after 2003. Hopefully we have another repeat ha.

I have done a bit of additional research tonight on the object located at 9h47m56.32s 13░16'25.20" ... Which actually IS there if you zoom in far, use SDSS III.

Turns out that there are 2 separate opinions on this object.

1. It's PGC 1427054 a documented galaxy as seen here.. http://leda.univ-lyon1.fr/ledacat.cgi?PGC%201427054&ob=ra

or

2. CW Leonis, I used http://simbad.u-strasbg.fr/simbad/sim-fcoo and typed in the coordinates and it appears the most tagged object is CW Leonis.

Either way, under the SDSS III zoom in a few ticks and you get this.

Regardless if it's CW Leonis or a Galaxy... I can definitely see why people would mistake this as "Nibiru"...
Or perhaps a Red Dwarf Companion of the Sun with one of the objects next to it being Nibiru... etc etc.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 03:48 AM
Ya I read that junk a while back after 2003. Hopefully we have another repeat ha.

There is no "hopefully" about it.,..


Regardless if it's CW Leonis or a Galaxy... I can definitely see why people would mistake this as "Nibiru"...

Really??....explain exactly why you think that...and that is a DIRECT question.


Or perhaps a Red Dwarf Companion of the Sun...

No, no, and no...there is no "red dwarf" companion of the Sun....


Will you continue to make these outragous claims???....because if you do, I and other posters will be asking questions and expecting answers...

Tensor
2011-Jul-06, 03:49 AM
vasotech, if you're so worried about the ending of the world, I would suggest you go here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_predictions) and notice how accurate all the predictions have been. The only one that has a chance of being right is the last one. In five billion years the sun may swallow the Earth, but at best, it will burn off all the atmosphere, water, and, of course, life. Perhaps you can explain why you think that any of the 2012 predictions listed (which one, of course, depends on what you want to believe) have any kind of supporting evidence.

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 04:09 AM
There is no "hopefully" about it.,..



Really??....explain exactly why you think that...and that is a DIRECT question.



No, no, and no...there is no "red dwarf" companion of the Sun....


Will you continue to make these outragous claims???....because if you do, I and other posters will be asking questions and expecting answers...

I see, so even though 1/3 of the Solar systems in our Galaxy have binary companions.

Examples of evidence that say we will most likely find one:

http://www.space.com/8028-sun-nemesis-pelted-earth-comets-study-suggests.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/is-an-unseen-binary-companion-of-the-sun-sending-comets-towards-earth.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110218.html
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3427/getting-wise-about-nemesis
http://www.physorg.com/news6428.html
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bri-emf042406.php

There are plenty more, but I think I've proved my point.

Here is the document from 1984 when they started the search for our Binary companion: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=0&osti_id=6496864&Row=7&formname=basicsearch.jsp and also in 1986 http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=0&osti_id=6484337&Row=14&formname=basicsearch.jsp

The equipment that was built: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=0&osti_id=908897&Row=4&formname=basicsearch.jsp

So, with this much Tax payer dollars going to Study and Equipment... You would hope they find the thing pretty soon.

Mocking the thought of it is certainly NOT what I consider to be science.

LaurelHS
2011-Jul-06, 04:17 AM
Using alarmist YouTube videos and ambiguous quotes from film makers to support an argument is not what I consider to be science.

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 04:18 AM
Using alarmist YouTube videos and ambiguous quotes from film makers to support an argument is not what I consider to be science.

Aye, we've already moved past that in this thread.

cjameshuff
2011-Jul-06, 04:22 AM
I see, so even though 99% of the Solar systems in our Galaxy have binary companions,

Less than 1/3, actually. http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2006/pr200611.html



you are still too close minded to see that there is a huge chance we do as well

Given the extent of the searches that have been conducted and which have failed to detect evidence of a companion, concluding that Sol is almost certainly a single star is not at all close minded.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 04:26 AM
I see, so even though 99% of the Solar systems in our Galaxy have binary companions,
you are still too close minded to see that there is a huge chance we do as well?


Is this really the "position" you want to take?....that the "problem" is not with you, but rather that I'm "closed minded"???

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 04:26 AM
I see, so just because it hasn't been publicly released, it's not fact.

I tend to agree most of the time but in this case, just look at the number of reports on 'About To Find It'.

And then they rename is 'Tyche' the friendly brother of Nemesis.

I think they're going to release finding it within this year personally, they can't hold back much longer.

From my perspective, They have all but admitted that it's there already!

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 04:28 AM
Is this really the "position" you want to take?....that the "problem" is not with you, but rather that I'm "closed minded"???

Everyone has their own problems, but still that doesn't change the fact that the Sun MAY indeed have a binary companion.

There is no way that any scientist could pass this evidence off as "rubbish".. Just look at the sources!


NOTE: I did not make any connection to a binary companion and any "doomsday" scenario. I was simply stating that the evidence is mounting that a binary exists.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 04:30 AM
Just so everyone knows...I'm outta this thread...it is pointless to continue...

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 04:31 AM
I think they're going to release finding it within this year personally, they can't hold back much longer.

You really need to stop making claims you can't "back up" with evidence.

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 04:33 AM
You really need to stop making claims you can't "back up" with evidence.

Ya me too, no point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge data starring them right in the face.

Stalemate

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 04:43 AM
...no point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge data....

closed minded insult noted....

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-06, 04:44 AM
Everyone has their own problems, but still that doesn't change the fact that the Sun MAY indeed have a binary companion.


Unlikely, but let's say there was a brown dwarf a light year or two from the sun. What would a distant brown dwarf have to do with your Nibiru claims?



There is no way that any scientist could pass this evidence off as "rubbish".. Just look at the sources!

Most of those are about the "Nemesis" idea, which has a real problem with lack of evidence. Binaryresearch is pure pseudoscience (it's been discussed in the ATM section). And I don't get what that has to do with your idea.

By the way, you keep posting more bits that generate more questions. I'm still not seeing answers to earlier questions. For instance, here:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/117670-Is-It-CW-Leonis-or-Not?p=1910118#post1910118

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-06, 04:55 AM
And then they rename is 'Tyche' the friendly brother of Nemesis.

I think they're going to release finding it within this year personally, they can't hold back much longer.


So, let's say a good sized planet was found in a distant orbit in the outer solar system. Same question: What would this have to do with your Nibiru claims? Which, as you seem to claim, is about a planet coming CLOSE to the Earth, soon.

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-06, 05:04 AM
Does anyone else get a mental image of a cartoon giant planet sneaking up, ready to leap out at an unsuspecting Earth, a la Elmer Fudd? "Be vewwy quiet... I'm pwanning the Apocawypse". :shhh:


Heh, not until now, but I like it. Actually, I was trying to think about how you'd move a planet. To do it quickly, the energy requirements would have to be incredible, and you'd have to do it so as not to melt the planet. And if you push too fast, it will come apart. Also, the energy required should make it very obvious.

A planet that could sneak . . . It's a pure appeal to magic.



Tell what? The idea is complete nonsense, dreamt up by people either sitting in their basement who can't believe their luck that they now have the means to deliver their crackpot ideas to a global audience, or those who have hit upon an easy means of parting a number of uncritical people from their cash.

Exactly.

Tensor
2011-Jul-06, 05:37 AM
I see, so even though 1/3 of the Solar systems in our Galaxy have binary companions.

Yeah, which mean 2/3 of the stars in our galaxy DO NOT have companies. Which group is larger?


Examples of evidence that say we will most likely find one:

http://www.space.com/8028-sun-nemesis-pelted-earth-comets-study-suggests.html
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/is-an-unseen-binary-companion-of-the-sun-sending-comets-towards-earth.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/WISE/news/wise20110218.html
http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/3427/getting-wise-about-nemesis

All the above do not present any hard evidence for a companion. They use words like "might", "may", "could", "perhaps", "it is thought", etc. Note that none of them say they have found one or are even close to finding one. The best they can do is to say that IF it exists, they wouldn't be able to verify it until mid 2013.



http://www.physorg.com/news6428.html
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-04/bri-emf042406.php
These three are from Walter Cruttendun and Binary Institute has been discussed and dismissed here before. Do a search on Cruttendun. Those last three aren't even a valid source.


There are plenty more, but I think I've proved my point.

What point? That you can find papers that use weasel words, instead of definitive words. Yet you claim they are close to finding it? Or that you can use discredited sources? Yeah, you've pretty much proved those points.


Here is the document from 1984 when they started the search for our Binary companion: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=0&osti_id=6496864&Row=7&formname=basicsearch.jsp and also in 1986 http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=0&osti_id=6484337&Row=14&formname=basicsearch.jsp
Just one example from the first paper:

speculative 1. The sun has a companion star, orbiting with a moderately eccentric orbit with a major axis of 2.8 light-years.

Two examples from the second paper:

The evidence supports the claim that periodic impacts on the earth have caused mass extinctions. It does not show that the periodic comet showers are caused by the close passage of a solar companion.

We are currently observing the remaining 2,729 stars on the Search List, and expect to complete the observations within the next year (they already had eliminated 31). The search was finished in 1987, with negative results.

So, the first paper, the paper you say started it all, specifically states the idea of a companion star is speculative. Note, not is definite, is speculative. The other paper, says the evidence does not support a companion and they have looked at 2770 stars, to see if they were viable as companion stars. None were.



The equipment that was built: http://www.osti.gov/bridge/product.biblio.jsp?query_id=1&page=0&osti_id=908897&Row=4&formname=basicsearch.jsp

I suggest you go back and actually read that paper. They are talking about the Keck II with adaptive optics. What, exactly does that have to do with the search for a companion of the sun? And why would you use the Keck to search for a companion? Do you have any idea what the Keck is capable of and used for?


So, with this much Tax payer dollars going to Study and Equipment... You would hope they find the thing pretty soon.

Exactly what in any of the papers not done by Cruttendun do you believe makes this statement viable?


Mocking the thought of it is certainly NOT what I consider to be science.

The ACTUAL evidence is not even worth considering. Hence the mocking.

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 05:43 AM
So, let's say a good sized planet was found in a distant orbit in the outer solar system. Same question: What would this have to do with your Nibiru claims? Which, as you seem to claim, is about a planet coming CLOSE to the Earth, soon.

Well, according to most that I've read... "Nibiru's" last passage was around 1-6 AD. Most people seem to use the figure 3,600 years for the orbit, so lets base the assumption on that.

If the last passage was 1-6 AD, then Nibiru as another 1,000+ years until we see it again. Then others say the last passage was around 1550 AD, which puts it here around 2050 or so.

By the way, In the Sumerian tablets, they described both Uranus and Neptune accurately, as proven by the Voyager 2. Also they noted all planets that were included in the solar system, even "without a telescope".

I have no claim about when it comes, but I do think that there may be more to ancient history than we think.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 06:27 AM
In the Sumerian tablets, they described both Uranus and Neptune accurately, as proven by the Voyager 2.

Sorry, but that's simply not true....but I welcome you to PROVE IT WITH EVIDENCE, or retract that claim.



aside...yeah, I said I was leaving, but that was before vasotech's claims became so "outrageous".

AGN Fuel
2011-Jul-06, 06:43 AM
Now I do realize that in all rational sense there can be no brown dwarf near us because it's gravity would've already perturbed Saturn a great distance and that has not happened.


Well, according to most that I've read... "Nibiru's" last passage was around 1-6 AD.

How are you able to reconcile these two statements? A giant planet/brown dwarf passing close to the sun in a highly eliptical orbit would be like a bull in a china shop. You recognise that in your first statement. But if "Nibiru" passed through the neighbourhood ~2000 years ago, you need to explain why the planetary orbits in the solar system are so stable. The two statements are irreconcilable.

vasotech
2011-Jul-06, 07:00 AM
How are you able to reconcile these two statements? A giant planet/brown dwarf passing close to the sun in a highly eliptical orbit would be like a bull in a china shop. You recognise that in your first statement. But if "Nibiru" passed through the neighbourhood ~2000 years ago, you need to explain why the planetary orbits in the solar system are so stable. The two statements are irreconcilable.

Perhaps it passed through the outer solar system and only slightly perturbed the inner planets (say.. between Saturn and Uranus or Uranus and Neptune).

Possibly even giving Uranus it's tilt. (never have actually read that, just thought of it during this example).

Some theorize that the pyramids were actually built to stabilize Earth's orbit after the last passage.

Of course, who knows? It may all be just pseudoscience anyways.

Just found this http://news.discovery.com/space/has-the-mystery-of-uranus-tilt-been-solved.html ...
Which speaks of a large moon that magically 'disappeared'.

R.A.F.
2011-Jul-06, 07:07 AM
Really, Vaso...you need to start providing some form of credible evidence for all these claims, or retract those claims...continually posting new claims without evidence will not serve you well here.

AGN Fuel
2011-Jul-06, 07:13 AM
Perhaps it passed through the outer solar system and only slightly perturbed the inner planets (say.. between Saturn and Uranus or Uranus and Neptune).

Possibly even giving Uranus it's tilt. (never have actually read that, just thought of it during this example).

Some theorize that the pyramids were actually built to stabilize Earth's orbit after the last passage.

Of course, who knows? According to science this is all pseudoscience anyways.

No - that doesn't even warrant the descriptor of pseudoscience. You've entered Harry Potter territory there.

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 07:42 AM
I guess the only thing that makes it hard to not believe is the Sumerian texts and other mythologies describing a planet like body.

What Sumerian texts? I am going to assume that is just as untrue as every other factoid you have come up with.

Unless you can provide a source. And by "source", I don't mean a YouTube video, or a crank website, or a newspaper. I mean a primary source: a reliable translation of the text produced by a credible academic. Perhaps one done, say, 50 years ago before all this nonsense started.

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 07:45 AM
I see, so just because it hasn't been publicly released, it's not fact.

What hasn't been publicly released?
By who?
Why?


I tend to agree most of the time but in this case, just look at the number of reports on 'About To Find It'.

What exactly is "it"?


From my perspective, They have all but admitted that it's there already!

They have? Where?

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 07:46 AM
Ya me too, no point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge data starring them right in the face.

What data? All you have provided is crank websites, fake newspapers and YuoTube videos.

Van Rijn
2011-Jul-06, 07:46 AM
Well, according to most that I've read... "Nibiru's" last passage was around 1-6 AD. Most people seem to use the figure 3,600 years for the orbit, so lets base the assumption on that.


Most people's figures . . . based on what? But that doesn't begin to answer my question. For a highly eccentric 3600 year orbit (which is incredibly unstable, and would cause obvious perturbations), you get a maximum distance of about 470 AU. The Tyche idea is for a planet always far from the sun out around 10,000 to 15,000 AU. The brown dwarf companion idea is for something in a orbit 60,000 or more AU out, and again always far from the sun. The whole point with these ideas is that they have to be very distant in order to have escaped detection so far.

So I repeat, what do those ideas (and they are only ideas) have to do with the Nibiru claim?



If the last passage was 1-6 AD, then Nibiru as another 1,000+ years until we see it again. Then others say the last passage was around 1550 AD, which puts it here around 2050 or so.


Again, claims that have nothing to do with these other ideas. And with its own problems (aside from those already discussed, something that close would be pretty easy to detect).



By the way, In the Sumerian tablets, they described both Uranus and Neptune accurately, as proven by the Voyager 2. Also they noted all planets that were included in the solar system, even "without a telescope".


Claims again. Where do they do this?

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 07:47 AM
Everyone has their own problems, but still that doesn't change the fact that the Sun MAY indeed have a binary companion.

It may. But so what? Why is that possibly relevant to any of the other nonsense you bring up?

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 08:08 AM
Well, according to most that I've read... "Nibiru's" last passage was around 1-6 AD. Most people seem to use the figure 3,600 years for the orbit, so lets base the assumption on that.

Why? What is the point of trying to deduce anything from made up, untrue facts?


If the last passage was 1-6 AD, then Nibiru as another 1,000+ years until we see it again. Then others say the last passage was around 1550 AD, which puts it here around 2050 or so.

And if it is made of chocolate, that will be a good thing.


By the way, In the Sumerian tablets, they described both Uranus and Neptune accurately, as proven by the Voyager 2. Also they noted all planets that were included in the solar system, even "without a telescope".

You know what, I bet they didn't. Unless you have a primary source for that.


I have no claim about when it comes, but I do think that there may be more to ancient history than we think.

Why? Because of all those other "predictions" that have come true?

Strange
2011-Jul-06, 08:12 AM
Some theorize that the pyramids were actually built to stabilize Earth's orbit after the last passage.

"Some"? Some who? Not anyone who knows what they are talking about; has actually studied the subject. Oh, don't tell me, it was on YouTube so it must be true.


It may all be just pseudoscience anyways.

"May"? Like there is any doubt at all.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jul-06, 12:53 PM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJE2zoVCkA
Did you even watch and understand what that news report said, or did you just go by some anonymous youtube user's title?

There is nothing in that report that says what they are preparing for. They just think that shelters are a good idea in general, and go on to say they "hope they won't be needed".

chrlzs
2011-Jul-06, 12:58 PM
vasotech, you have made the following claim numerous times.

I guess the only thing that makes it hard to not believe is the Sumerian texts and other mythologies describing a planet like body.

Please CITE the texts and translations by recognised translation scholars. You have been asked by at least two other people to do this.

If you cannot, then can you explain why you made this claim?

Also, can you explain why this assertion about the Sumerian texts has only been around for a short time - a time corresponding, coincidentally, to the rise of conspiracy websites on the Internet?

Gillianren
2011-Jul-06, 04:32 PM
Some theorize that the pyramids were actually built to stabilize Earth's orbit after the last passage.

How much does the Earth weigh? How much do the pyramids (by which I assume you just mean Egyptian) weigh? Is that a reasonable idea for those people to have if you take those two facts into consideration?

And, yes, those are direct questions.

Swift
2011-Jul-06, 05:14 PM
vasotech, you started this thread claiming to have an innocent question, but again show that really you are still falling for the "end of the World" hoopla. As such these are going to be treated as your claims and you will need to answer questions put to you, on penalty of infraction. (Or, withdraw your claims). BAUT does not exist for the purpose of you reminding us how worried you are about something imaginary.
vasotech,

Let me just repeat what pzkpfw warned you about. You keep flipping back and forth between "just asking" and advocating a non-mainstream idea. That kind of game is not going to be tolerated any longer. You were given plenty of opportunites, in this thread and in others, to have your "just asking" questions addressed. Yet, you continue to argue with the answers you are given and you keep introducing new non-mainstream ideas. We are not going to tolerate this behavior any longer. You will answer all the questions that have been put to you in this thread, as the advocate of a non-mainstream idea, or you will retract your claims (and that retraction may not be undone with a future thread). Those are your choices.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jul-06, 05:59 PM
Some theorize that the pyramids were actually built to stabilize Earth's orbit after the last passage.
If they do, they have no idea about how gravity works.
Moving stuff around on the surface of the Earth can have no influence on its orbit.

Garrison
2011-Jul-06, 06:21 PM
Some theorize that the pyramids were actually built to stabilize Earth's orbit after the last passage.

First. Which Pyramids? The Egyptians built quite a number of them over an extended period of time so which ones were supposed to be stabilizers?
Second. How? By what mechanism did they achieve this stabilization?


Of course, who knows? It may all be just pseudoscience anyways.

Pyramids stabilizing the Earth? I don't think there's any maybe about it.


Just found this http://news.discovery.com/space/has-the-mystery-of-uranus-tilt-been-solved.html ...
Which speaks of a large moon that magically 'disappeared'.

Did you actually read the article? Especially this part(my bold)?


However, the researchers admit that such a large moon may not be plausible as current satellite formation models don't allow moons of this size. As indicated in their unpublished paper's conclusions, a smaller satellite of only 0.1 percent the mass of Uranus may be sufficient to pull the planet on its side over a longer period.

But what happened to this moon? It is not uncommon that planets disrupt (or even steal) other planet's moons, so the gravitational influences of the other massive gas giants may be a factor. For example, Neptune's large moon Triton is thought to have been "kidnapped" from the Kuiper Belt as it has a retrograde orbit (i.e. it orbits the "wrong way" when compared with the other Neptunian moons) and it has a similar composition to the dwarf planet Pluto.

So it probably isn't correct and even if it is there's nothing in it that points to something as exotic as Nibiru.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jul-06, 06:49 PM
Just found this http://news.discovery.com/space/has-the-mystery-of-uranus-tilt-been-solved.html ...
Which speaks of a large moon that magically 'disappeared'.
This is another example of the media using hyperbole to describe things.

First, the existance of the moon is not known. Second, because it's not there now and we don't know if or how it became not to be there does not mean it was "magic".

Besides, what does this moon theory correlate with a passing object?

Even the story says this hypothetical moon, being too big to exist would take 2 million years to cause the effect. I don't think a passing object would cause such an issue even after billions of passes, which (at many years for each pass) is longer than the solar system.

GreenMan
2011-Jul-09, 12:55 AM
Moscow building 5,000 additional bomb shelters by 2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdJE2zoVCkA

Economic stimulus program for Russia?

Truthsearch
2011-Nov-28, 09:23 PM
Vaso,
I have read the posts on this blog, and decided to become a regisered member here, my first post.

I have been looking for the cause of the zodiac precession from a somewhat scientific point of view. It just seems that if we on earth experience 1 revolution of the zodiac every approx. 26,000 years, that the most obvious cause would be a large star in binary revolution with our sun. Since CW Leonis is the brightest star (in infrared) in our sky, I looked there first. The only big problem is that most data documents about 500 light years distance from our sun, and that is much too far away for an orbital period of about 26,000 years.
I'm OK with fairly simple math and good with math concepts. To assist in my lack, I cheated and googled the formula for calculating periods of orbiting bodies around our sun. Found a good website (but did not write it down... had no idea Iwould be on this blog today). But here is what I found. Assuming an orbiting body the size of our sun and a 26,000 year period of rotation around our sun, the calculated distance comes out to be around 1,100 Au. That would imply distance to our sun of about 100,000,000,000 or about 100 billion miles. This is approximately .01 light year, exceedingly close in stellar terms.

It is within a factor of about 2 to the distance shown to a 'dead star' as depicted in the pioneer spacecraft article in Encyclopeia Britanica which by memory was printed in 1982 (I didn't want to leave this post to check the exact date of the article). So I am looking for a large body about 15 or 20 times the distance of Pluto to our sun. It should not be that hard to find.

I suspect that the precession we observe in the constellations is not mearly caused by our earths wobble. I suspect that it is more easily explained if our solar system actually is in a binary orbital system with a gravitationaly large 'other body'. This other body should be at least as massive as our sun. CW Leonis would qualify except for it's distance. My real question is..... Is there any documentation of distance to CW Leonis using parallax measurments using the earths orbit as a base? Or is there any direct way to measure its' distance to our sun? Maybe results from the WISE spacecraft would help, but NASA seems to be waiting on much of that data.

Shaula
2011-Nov-29, 08:56 AM
Trouble is that now you need to explain why the Earth's precession is different to every other type of precession. We can model it using known parameters of the Solar system and get answers very close to that 26,000 figure. So if your companion body explains that, what other effect do you need to postulate to balance out the natural precession of the equinoxes?

Truthsearch
2011-Nov-29, 04:32 PM
To me it is interesting to note that the defense of the accepted theory of precession is based on whether the accepted traditional view is a workable solution. I would say of course it is a workable solution. I would add that the present theory adequately describes the question of what is happening. So we don't (need) a new theory or a different solution. As to why the axis of rotation is retarded about 20 minutes per year.. The present theory, to my very limited knowledge, does not address the issue of why it is retarded that amount. Nor do I have any answer of why it is retarded based on present theory.

It is similar to in times past the learned scholars saying the earth is flat and present theory proves it, and no other theory need be considered. Of course we now know that is not true, the real facts were ignored for centuries. We now know that the earth has a causative reason for being a sphere, namely the effects of gravity, which we now know is an effect of how matter interacts with space and time. So, I would admit you are correct in that we do not need an additional theory, because the one now in place describes the motion well.
I would not stop looking for new knowledge, especially since we have better instruments that can detect more and different extra-solar bodies. And I will continue to wonder if CW leonis has the correct distance measurement. Even if my precession postulation is wrong, which it very well may be. I still want to know more about the distance to CW Leonis. I am checking the data and will try to figure it out.

As to 'what other effect do you need to postulate to balance out the natural precession of the equinoxes?'. I would answer that none is needed, but there should be room to consider other possibilities.

Thank you Shaula, for your thoughtful and stimulating reply.

Shaula
2011-Nov-29, 06:30 PM
You misunderstand my point. Precession is an observable consequence of a tilted spinning system. We see it in the lab. If your mystery body explains ALL the precessional effects of the Earth then you have to answer the question "Why does the Earth not behave like all other spinning bodies". I am not trying to defend the status quo and am not a flat Earther. I was trying to show you that your maths needs to be modified - maybe there is an effect that need explanation but the simple model you were presenting cannot be used to make any useful predictions because we know the Earth precesses for well known reasons. If there is a effect above or beyond what we have calculated then your mystery body may account for it - but you need to modify your estimates of distance and size accordingly.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-29, 06:57 PM
Besides, "flat Earth" is a strawman. It was invented by Washington Irving to explain why Columbus had difficulty convincing people to fund his journey. When he had difficulty because he was wrong. His numbers were off; he said the Earth was 10,000 miles smaller than it is. If the Americas hadn't been here, which he almost certainly didn't know, no one ever would have heard from him again.

Strange
2011-Nov-29, 07:07 PM
His numbers were off; he said the Earth was 10,000 miles smaller than it is.

While the right size had been known since about 200BC.

Gillianren
2011-Nov-29, 08:26 PM
Exactly. In fact, Christopher Columbus is actually an example of the radical new thought's being completely wrong and the status quo's being right. If he hadn't lucked out by finding land . . . .

Truthsearch
2011-Nov-29, 09:31 PM
Shaula,
Thanks for taking time to reply. Obvioiusly I am not aware of why all tilted spinning systems precess. I have seen it with a toy gyroscope, but it is understandable since the gyroscope is fixed to ground on one end of the axel shaft and the gyroscope is directly emersed in the earths gravitational field, thus resulting in precession on its opposite shaft end. I am not aware that it would do so in free space where one end of the axel is not fixed, so to speak. I gladly submit that I do not have that knowledge. And I don't expect or anticipate that this is the place for me to obtain my better education... You have been more than helpful already. And also understanding I would add.

Please forgive me if you thought I was calling you a flat earther... I'm very sure that I am the one lacking here, not you. I appreciate the logic you have presented. Same for defending status quo, as I see you are interested in the science of it and not so much the politics of science.

As for CW Leonis, I'm still considering some of the published data, and will get back with you all on this board with any findings, even if it just backs up what is already known and accepted... I think that would be OK to do on this forum.

As for some other celestial body with a 26,000 year orbit, I will withhold my judgement until (or if) such a body is found. I am an amatuer astronomer, and if it is out there it is not visible at least by ordinary means , that I do know.
Thanks for your help.

cjameshuff
2011-Nov-30, 03:59 AM
Thanks for taking time to reply. Obvioiusly I am not aware of why all tilted spinning systems precess. I have seen it with a toy gyroscope, but it is understandable since the gyroscope is fixed to ground on one end of the axel shaft and the gyroscope is directly emersed in the earths gravitational field, thus resulting in precession on its opposite shaft end. I am not aware that it would do so in free space where one end of the axel is not fixed, so to speak. I gladly submit that I do not have that knowledge. And I don't expect or anticipate that this is the place for me to obtain my better education... You have been more than helpful already. And also understanding I would add.

Earth isn't planted on a perch like that gyroscope, but it is subject to tidal forces from the moon and sun. Each will apply a torque that attempts to bring Earth's equatorial bulge into the plane of its orbit around that body.

Shaula
2011-Nov-30, 06:22 AM
Thanks for taking time to reply.
Thank you for being so polite! That can often be lost in debates on the two Proving Ground boards (because people are often passionately for their ideas and feel under attack). Your attitude (I want to learn, I am looking at the data) does you a lot of credit and I just wanted to say that it is appreciated. I, or anyone else on here, do not have all the answers or know everything - and if saying so wasn't so often taken as a sign of weakness in the more impassioned debates I think you'd hear that said far more often.

Hornblower
2011-Nov-30, 01:42 PM
To me it is interesting to note that the defense of the accepted theory of precession is based on whether the accepted traditional view is a workable solution. I would say of course it is a workable solution. I would add that the present theory adequately describes the question of what is happening. So we don't (need) a new theory or a different solution. As to why the axis of rotation is retarded about 20 minutes per year.. The present theory, to my very limited knowledge, does not address the issue of why it is retarded that amount. Nor do I have any answer of why it is retarded based on present theory.

It is similar to in times past the learned scholars saying the earth is flat and present theory proves it, and no other theory need be considered. Of course we now know that is not true, the real facts were ignored for centuries. We now know that the earth has a causative reason for being a sphere, namely the effects of gravity, which we now know is an effect of how matter interacts with space and time. So, I would admit you are correct in that we do not need an additional theory, because the one now in place describes the motion well.
I would not stop looking for new knowledge, especially since we have better instruments that can detect more and different extra-solar bodies. And I will continue to wonder if CW leonis has the correct distance measurement. Even if my precession postulation is wrong, which it very well may be. I still want to know more about the distance to CW Leonis. I am checking the data and will try to figure it out.

As to 'what other effect do you need to postulate to balance out the natural precession of the equinoxes?'. I would answer that none is needed, but there should be room to consider other possibilities.

Thank you Shaula, for your thoughtful and stimulating reply.My bold. First things first. There is no shame in having very limited knowledge. We all have to start somewhere. Just be advised that the more limited your knowledge is, the harder it is to answer your questions with a manageable number of short answers in a forum like this one. You might not know some of the terminology we use to keep things brief, and bringing you up to speed could take a while.

You used the expression "the axis of rotation is retarded about 20 minutes per year". If you were referring to the difference between the tropical and sidereal year, that is a direct artifact of the aforementioned precession. Twenty minutes is about 1/26,000 of a year. Whatever theory explains the precession explains that interval of 20 minutes.

Back to CW Leonis. Suppose for the sake of argument that it is a cooled-down remnant of one solar mass in a binary orbit with us at a distance of 1,100 AU. If so it would have an annual parallax of over an arcminute and a proper motion of some 50 arcseconds per year. That would have made headlines in reputable mainstream publications. I would say that we can safely rule it out as a candidate.

Back to the precession. The observed rate is in reasonably good agreement with what is expected from the gravitational torque generated by the Sun and the Moon on a tilted, spining oblate spheroidal body. That torque is a result of the same gravitational gradient that causes the tides, and the effect diminishes as the cube of the distance to the perturbing body. For a solar mass body 1,100 AU away, it would be down by a factor of over a billion, and would be masked by the perturbations from the planets and by uncertainties that are present because the Earth is lumpy and gooey.

Truthsearch
2011-Nov-30, 05:27 PM
Hornblower,
Thanks for the reply. You state:" Twenty minutes is about 1/26,000 of a year. Whatever theory explains the precession explains that interval of 20 minutes".
Yes, that's what I ran into when I looked up info. So, my main concern was why that 20 minute difference. I can see that present theory describes the effect and with the posting here I see that science believes they know the cause for that effect. I don't begin to say I have any way to dispute the present theories, and there is no way I could argue that science does not adequately describe the cause of the 20 minute difference.... I am an arm-chair science lover, not an actual scientist.

As for the distance to CW Leonis, I have looked at the oldest documented coordinates that I could find and compared those to the newest coordinates. The oldest coordinates I could find were 9h 45m 15s // +13d 30' 40.7". These were listed from ....harvard.edu... and dated 1969, the supposed year CW was first observed. U of Chicago also was linked to these coordinates according to my somewhat careless notes. Present day coordinates accepted to be 9 47 57 // +13 16 44. So it has moved maybe a quarter of a degree in about 40 years. And I havn't done the trig yet, but CW is obviously not close enough to be in a 26,000 year orbit. I was going to do the calculations before bringing up the subject... but your post has already brought the issue to light. I was also going to compare that amount of angular movement to a well known other star.... maybe Betelguese which is about 1500 ly distance and see how much it moved, if at all.

I also found out that CW was documented (not sure how this is done) to be moving at 91 km/sec. I can relate better to miles and that works out to be close to 4.8 million miles per earth day. That is 1.75 billion miles per year. So, in 40 years it should have moved about 70 billion miles. So as for my orriginal quest, I am looking for a large celestial body roughly 100 billion miles from our sun (in order to be a 26,000 year orbit) and in 40 years CW would have moved 70 billion miles... Yes, it would have to be streaking accross the sky. Every eye would be on it. So we agree.

As for your last point, ....."For a solar mass body 1,100 AU away, it would be down by a factor of over a billion...". Yes but the whole idea was to replace precession (calling it zero precession) with a large celestial body in orbit with our sun as a binary system. Then, the changing position of the backround stars and constellatons at the yearly equinox, would not be because the earth is precessing, instead the whole solar system would be changing position in relaton to the backround stars because it would be in a 26,000 year orbit. Rather than a one solar mass companion it would seem to work better if the companion was 5 or 10 solar masses. As an amateur astronomer, I see no such object. So, it is wild speculation,, i agree with that. But at least it clarifies the problem to those who believe our sun is in a binary system.


If CW Leonis had been much closer to our sun, it would have made a good candidate. For one, it is invisible to the naked eye and normal (non-infrared) telescopes. Point two, it is more massive than our sun. But given the data, and knowing what I do about CW, it could not qualify.

In fact, I do not have any candidate that would qualify. According to recent NASA press release, the WISE space craft has found several hard to see (low temperature) large celestial bodies near our solar system, but there are no details that I know of. I strongly suspect that these objects, when better clarified by NASA, will NOT turn out to be a binary star to our sun. As one scientist recently stated,,,'There are probably large celestial bodies beyond the Kuyper Belt...Get over it!". So, thanks all, I'm about posted out here... Appreciate all the feedback.. So, far I believe I have learned a lot from this exchange..
Thanks again for your help and thoughtful response

Hornblower
2011-Dec-01, 12:20 AM
[/quote]


[QUOTE=Truthsearch;1964180]Hornblower,
Thanks for the reply. You state:" Twenty minutes is about 1/26,000 of a year. Whatever theory explains the precession explains that interval of 20 minutes".
Yes, that's what I ran into when I looked up info. So, my main concern was why that 20 minute difference. I can see that present theory describes the effect and with the posting here I see that science believes they know the cause for that effect. I don't begin to say I have any way to dispute the present theories, and there is no way I could argue that science does not adequately describe the cause of the 20 minute difference.... I am an arm-chair science lover, not an actual scientist.

As for the distance to CW Leonis, I have looked at the oldest documented coordinates that I could find and compared those to the newest coordinates. The oldest coordinates I could find were 9h 45m 15s // +13d 30' 40.7". These were listed from ....harvard.edu... and dated 1969, the supposed year CW was first observed. U of Chicago also was linked to these coordinates according to my somewhat careless notes. Present day coordinates accepted to be 9 47 57 // +13 16 44. So it has moved maybe a quarter of a degree in about 40 years. And I havn't done the trig yet, but CW is obviously not close enough to be in a 26,000 year orbit. I was going to do the calculations before bringing up the subject... but your post has already brought the issue to light. I was also going to compare that amount of angular movement to a well known other star.... maybe Betelguese which is about 1500 ly distance and see how much it moved, if at all.
That change in published positions is almost entirely due to precession. This procession causes all stars to shift their published positions in unison relative to the celestial equator and its intersections with the ecliptic. This motion vastly exceeds the individual proper motion of any star relative to the virtually fixed background stars, and it is independent of the stars' distances from us. Betelgeuse and everything else appear to be moving in unison at this rate along circles parallel to the ecliptic. We analyze it by treating the stars as nearly fixed in the background with the celestial equator being swept past them at the rate of about one degree every 72 years. This sweep is a direct result of the axial precession.


I also found out that CW was documented (not sure how this is done) to be moving at 91 km/sec. I can relate better to miles and that works out to be close to 4.8 million miles per earth day. That is 1.75 billion miles per year. So, in 40 years it should have moved about 70 billion miles. So as for my orriginal quest, I am looking for a large celestial body roughly 100 billion miles from our sun (in order to be a 26,000 year orbit) and in 40 years CW would have moved 70 billion miles... Yes, it would have to be streaking accross the sky. Every eye would be on it. So we agree.

As for your last point, ....."For a solar mass body 1,100 AU away, it would be down by a factor of over a billion...". Yes but the whole idea was to replace precession (calling it zero precession) with a large celestial body in orbit with our sun as a binary system. Then, the changing position of the backround stars and constellatons at the yearly equinox, would not be because the earth is precessing, instead the whole solar system would be changing position in relaton to the backround stars because it would be in a 26,000 year orbit. Rather than a one solar mass companion it would seem to work better if the companion was 5 or 10 solar masses. As an amateur astronomer, I see no such object. So, it is wild speculation,, i agree with that. But at least it clarifies the problem to those who believe our sun is in a binary system.
It is not just wild speculation. It would give us the wrong pattern of apparent motion of the stars. Instead of appearing to orbit around us in unison in paths parallel to the ecliptic, they would appear to diverge from the point in the direction toward which were moving at the moment, drift past us front to rear, and converge behind us. The stars would appear to oscillate once about their mean positions in a 26,000 year cycle, with those mean positions being virtually fixed relative to our equinox points. The nearest stars would show more motion than the more distant ones. Only the binary companion would move around the sky in a complete circuit during that cycle.

Remember, a spinning gyro in free fall will not precess in the absence of gravitational gradient perturbation. If the Sun and the Moon do not cause it to precess, neither will anything else. The orbital motion caused by the feeble gravity of the reputed companion will not do it, and without that precession we will not get the observed unison, distance-independent apparent motion. About two years ago another poster tried to argue otherwise, but when challenged his posts degenerated into a lot of kinematic hufferypuffery that did not accurately describe valid observations. I commend you for doing otherwise and heeding well-informed explanations. I understand how difficult it sometimes is for novices to understand explanations such as mine, no matter how well I think I have written.


If CW Leonis had been much closer to our sun, it would have made a good candidate. For one, it is invisible to the naked eye and normal (non-infrared) telescopes. Point two, it is more massive than our sun. But given the data, and knowing what I do about CW, it could not qualify.

In fact, I do not have any candidate that would qualify. According to recent NASA press release, the WISE space craft has found several hard to see (low temperature) large celestial bodies near our solar system, but there are no details that I know of. I strongly suspect that these objects, when better clarified by NASA, will NOT turn out to be a binary star to our sun. As one scientist recently stated,,,'There are probably large celestial bodies beyond the Kuyper Belt...Get over it!". So, thanks all, I'm about posted out here... Appreciate all the feedback.. So, far I believe I have learned a lot from this exchange..
Thanks again for your help and thoughtful response

Truthsearch
2011-Dec-01, 03:48 AM
Really thanks a bunch. I hadn't thought of the following: "It is not just wild speculation. It would give us the wrong pattern of apparent motion of the stars. " and "Instead of appearing to orbit around us in unison in paths parallel to the ecliptic, they would appear to diverge from the point in the direction toward which were moving at the moment, drift past us front to rear, and converge behind us. The stars would appear to oscillate once about their mean positions in a 26,000 year cycle, with those mean positions being virtually fixed relative to our equinox points. The nearest stars would show more motion than the more distant ones. Only the binary companion would move around the sky in a complete circuit during that cycle."

Wow, now why didn't I see that on my own? This really is a great site to get some much needed feedback and input. I don't say that lightly. This is why I ended up with a business degree!

Thanks again,,, maybe it helped someone else also, who was speculating along these lines. That was really, to me, a super eye-opener.

I am stopping posting on this thread at this point as all my questions have been answered, abundantly.

Thanks all..

Donnie B.
2011-Dec-01, 09:48 PM
Truthsearch win!