PDA

View Full Version : Dark Star theory:a possibility or New Age drivel?



Dunash
2002-Jan-22, 04:15 PM
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/review.html

ToSeek
2002-Jan-22, 05:34 PM
New Age drivel.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-22, 08:38 PM
On 2002-01-22 11:15, Dunash wrote:
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/review.html


Newage drivel picking up on Velikovsky's "Nemisis" theory to explain perceived periodic extinctions as well as increased meteor activity during the period. These happened roughly every 26 million years. Velikovsky surmised that that was the orbital period of the sun's alleged dark companion (supposedly a brown dwarf star). He based this on evidence that most stars are part of a binary system. (Evidence available during the 50's.) Velikovsky also mentioned that the reason for the mass extinctions was the Oort cloud being disturbed and an abnormal number of comets sent into the inner solar system, some of which have close encounters with earth.

The HUGE difference is the period of the two objects. These yoyo's claim a 3750 year period. They also make reference to it due in 2003. (It should be visible and easily tracked by many observatories. For it not to be released before now implies a conspiracy of thousands of astronomers and their support staff. (translation: not likely, astronomers tend to blow whistles.) Velikovsky claims 26 million years for a period. Since the last major die off was about 13 million years ago, the star would be at its furthest point. Therefore, very difficult to track.

Velikovsky's theory was quite interesting. I don't believe that it has been accepted by the mainstream and has been generally discounted. (Velikovsky also blamed "Nemisis" for the perturbation of Pluto's orbit.)

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jan-22, 09:43 PM
On 2002-01-22 15:38, Valiant Dancer wrote:

Newage drivel picking up on Velikovsky's "Nemisis" theory

The "Nemesis" theory isn't Velikovsky's; it's Luis Alvarez's.

The (work is my nemesis right now) Curtmudgeon

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-23, 10:24 AM
On 2002-01-22 16:43, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
The "Nemesis" theory isn't Velikovsky's; it's Luis Alvarez's.
I was going to point out that this information is readily available on the internet, which we have at our fingertips, but this guy (http://members.tripod.com/~mysterybabylon/nemesis.htm) thinks it was David Raup.

I think it was Richard Muller (http://muller.lbl.gov/). We may have to vote on it.

James
2002-Jan-23, 12:17 PM
New Age drivel

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-23, 12:38 PM
After reading the submission, I've concluded that it is not New Age drivel at all, it is a conspiracy theory. In fact, the author, Joan d'Arc (where have I heard that name before?) is the editor of Paranoia, The Conspiracy Reader (http://www.paranoiamagazine.com).

Notice that they have counted up the 12 orbs on NASA's Planetary Data System logo (http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/graphics/pds_bnr_logo2.jpg) (they have a more detailed image (http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/pds.gif)) and concluded that they stand for the Sun, the nine planets, the moon, and a red tailed interloper, Planet X. If NASA has Planet X on their logo, they most know something, right?

Russ
2002-Jan-23, 06:30 PM
I will have to disagree with those of you whom think this is New Age Drivel (NAD). It is not NAD. It would have to improve to be NAD.

This guy is proffering that the ancient Sumarians and Buffalonians /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif, or whoever, who thought they lived on a flat rock in the center of the universe, know more about something that all of the powerful new IR telescopes can't pick out of the background noise!

This fellow, Andy, is the only perons who can "interprit" the Buffalonians paintings?! Sounds like top shelf science to me. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif I've heard that interpriting Rorschat ink blots is also a valid scientific practice. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

But, Hey! That's my interpritation. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

ToSeek
2002-Jan-23, 06:51 PM
On 2002-01-23 13:30, Russ wrote:

This guy is proffering that the ancient Sumarians and Buffalonians /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif, or whoever, who thought they lived on a flat rock in the center of the universe, know more about something that all of the powerful new IR telescopes can't pick out of the background noise!



The theory is that the Sumerians knew this because the denizens of Planet X, called the Anunnaki, told them. Again, I'm not making this up. (The Anunnaki are also responsible for the force-evolution of humans from apes, by the way.)

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jan-23, 07:09 PM
On 2002-01-23 05:24, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-22 16:43, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
The "Nemesis" theory isn't Velikovsky's; it's Luis Alvarez's.
I was going to point out that this information is readily available on the internet, which we have at our fingertips, but this guy (http://members.tripod.com/~mysterybabylon/nemesis.htm) thinks it was David Raup.

I think it was Richard Muller (http://muller.lbl.gov/). We may have to vote on it.


I haven't checked out your Muller link yet, but I know why the other guy thinks it's Raup: Raup wrote the most popular book on the topic The Nemesis Affair : A Story of the Death of Dinosaurs and the Ways of Science (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393319180/qid=1011815817/sr=1-11/ref=sr_1_75_11/104-6211910-9784715).(NOTE: I am not posting an Amazon.com link in order to solicit/encourage sales of the book, although I own a copy and think that it's a very good book. I am including that link because there is a very good summary of the book on that page. IF you want to buy the book, by all means go ahead, but that's not my real intention here.)

The summary on that page mentions "four UC Berkeley scientists, led by Walter Alvarez"; I'm as sure as I can be without digging out my copy of the book that one of the other three was Luis (and I forget which is the father and which the son, too), but I'll accept the change to Walter as a correction to my earlier statement. Raup is definitely not a part of the team: "Author David Raup and his colleague Jack Sepkoski were however among those paleontologists (Stephen Jay Gould was another) who liked the idea," so contra the link you posted for "this guy", it is definitely not Raup's theory/idea except by adoption.

The (I'll go check on Muller now) Curtmudgeon

Grapes, following your Muller link and then clicking on his link to the Preface of his new book on Ice Ages (note: not the Dinosaur Killer that sparked the Nemesis theory; the Ice Ages were a much later phenomenon), and while it doesn't mention Nemesis anywhere I note that said Preface was written by Walter Alvarez. It's very possible that Muller was one of the other three Berkeley scientists mentioned above, which would account for your connecting him with the Nemesis theory.

The (now that I've Muller-ed that over) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-01-23 14:18 ]</font>

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jan-23, 07:52 PM
On 2002-01-23 13:51, ToSeek wrote:


On 2002-01-23 13:30, Russ wrote:

This guy is proffering that the ancient Sumarians and Buffalonians /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif, or whoever, who thought they lived on a flat rock in the center of the universe, know more about something that all of the powerful new IR telescopes can't pick out of the background noise!

The theory is that the Sumerians knew this because the denizens of Planet X, called the Anunnaki, told them. Again, I'm not making this up. (The Anunnaki are also responsible for the force-evolution of humans from apes, by the way.)

You know, one of these days I'm going to have to follow the link at the start of this whole thread and see what it's all about.

Anyway, gauging from this, the guy has gone and confused the Alvarez Nemesis "dinosaur killer" theory with Sitchin's Niburu "theory" /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif , which really has nothing to do with it. Nemesis is a dark companion to our Sun, with a 26 Myear orbit; Niburu is a currently-undiscovered (except, of course, by Sitchin /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif ) planet with an orbit whose exact period I'm forgetting, but I'm thinking Kyears and not Myears. Nemesis caused the Dinosaur Killer asteroid to impact Earth; Niburu caused the Earth itself to be created, as a fragment of the proto-planet Tiamat (with the Moon and Asteroid Belts as other fragments), and was later the home planet of the Anunaki who "created" mankind from Homo erectus as gold-mining slaves. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anyway, someone appears to have had intellectual indigestion from reading too many books at once, with similar sounding but otherwise unrelated subjects. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

I'm sure that Alvarez would have welcomed Sitchin to his team. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

The (Sitchin's planet is an intellect-killer, not a dinosaur-killer) Curtmudgeon

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Curtmudgeon on 2002-01-23 14:54 ]</font>

The Curtmudgeon
2002-Jan-23, 08:10 PM
On 2002-01-23 14:52, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
You know, one of these days I'm going to have to follow the link at the start of this whole thread and see what it's all about.


(Quoting myself is bad Netiquette, but whotthehell, it's appropriate here.)

Looking over the linked website finally, I have to agree with the statement in my preceding post: intellectual indigestion. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif This guy is simply trying to capitalise on general WWWidiocy by combining the "best" of Velikovsky and Sitchin with a gloss of real science in the form of vague hints of the Nemesis theory.

Nothing original here, just a goulash of pseudo-science. I note, f'rinstance, that his new book was "previously only available in abbreviated web site installments" (WARNING! WARNING! DANGER! DANGER! RUN, WILL ROBINSON!) and "is now available directly from the author" (which by itself is not necessarily a Bad Thing(tm), but coupled with the previous item should raise red flags immediately).

The (of course, even Sitchin points out his debt to The Great V) Curtmudgeon

lpetrich
2002-Jan-23, 09:28 PM
In fact, one can readily estimate the distance that the object is at now, by using some simple facts about what its orbit has to be.

Its orbit is much like that of a long-period comet, meaning that it is nearly parabolic when a few years away from perihelion. And if the object is several times its minimum distance, one can make the further simplification of imagining that it is headed to the Sun. In that case, the distance and the time to perihelion are related by a simple formula:

r ~ (9/2)^(1/3) * t^(2/3)

where r is in Astronomical Units (Earth from Sun) and t is in Earth years / 2*pi. Assuming that the object will reach perihelion 1.25 years from now, in the spring of 2003, I find a distance of 7.4 AU

This object passed Neptune's orbit in early 1991, Uranus's orbit in mid-1996, and Saturn's orbit early last year; it will pass Jupiter's orbit this summer.

If this object exists and is as big as Jupiter or Saturn, it ought to be easy to see by now -- it ought to look like a bright star, the way that Jupiter and Saturn do. And with a small telescope, it ought to be easily resolvable as a disk.

But that object is not seen.

Also, such an object would have very noticeable gravitational effects on the outer planets and on spacecraft that have been sent to them; no such effects have been reported. A Jupiter-mass object will have a gravitational effects 0.001 times the Sun's, but the motions of those objects are measured to much greater accuracy than that, meaning that such effects will be easy to pick up as observed - calculated discrepancies.

But no such discrepancies are known.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-24, 04:52 AM
On 2002-01-23 14:09, The Curtmudgeon wrote:
Grapes, following your Muller link and then clicking on his link to the Preface of his new book on Ice Ages (note: not the Dinosaur Killer that sparked the Nemesis theory; the Ice Ages were a much later phenomenon), and while it doesn't mention Nemesis anywhere I note that said Preface was written by Walter Alvarez. It's very possible that Muller was one of the other three Berkeley scientists mentioned above, which would account for your connecting him with the Nemesis theory.
Alvarez and Muller have worked together, as is evidenced by this list of Muller's articles on Nemesis (http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/RichPubs.htm#anchor104052). The Nemesis theory was originally published in Nature by Marc Davis, Piet Hut, and Muller (vol 308, pp 715-717, 1984). Muller also wrote the book Nemesis (http://), published in 1988.

I once talked to Walter Alvarez in a hallway at an American Geophysical Union meeting. He was upset that geophysicists gave no attention to one of his more recent theories--they didn't even seem to read it, much less comment on it.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-24, 01:04 PM
On 2002-01-23 13:30, Russ wrote:
I will have to disagree with those of you whom think this is New Age Drivel (NAD). It is not NAD. It would have to improve to be NAD.

This guy is proffering that the ancient Sumarians and Buffalonians /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif, or whoever, who thought they lived on a flat rock in the center of the universe, know more about something that all of the powerful new IR telescopes can't pick out of the background noise!

This fellow, Andy, is the only perons who can "interprit" the Buffalonians paintings?! Sounds like top shelf science to me. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif I've heard that interpriting Rorschat ink blots is also a valid scientific practice. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

But, Hey! That's my interpritation. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif



Well, that's because he smokes the killer stuff and rolls the big ones. (Sorry, drug use is the only explaination I can come up with for placing that huge of an object with a 3750 year period that close to the inner solar system.)

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-25, 09:06 PM
On 2002-01-24 08:04, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Well, that's because he smokes the killer stuff and rolls the big ones. (Sorry, drug use is the only explaination I can come up with for placing that huge of an object with a 3750 year period that close to the inner solar system.)
I don't get ya, big guy. Are you saying, he placed that object there? As in, "created it?"

Russ
2002-Jan-25, 09:24 PM
On 2002-01-23 13:51, ToSeek wrote:
The theory is that the Sumerians knew this because the denizens of Planet X, called the Anunnaki, told them. Again, I'm not making this up. (The Anunnaki are also responsible for the force-evolution of humans from apes, by the way.)

Oh yeah?! Well then, how come they know the folks are called Anunnaki but don't know the name of the planet? Why call it X? Or are the Anunnakilonians so unimaginative that they can't come up with something better? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif

Russ
2002-Jan-25, 09:40 PM
On 2002-01-24 08:04, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Well, that's because he smokes the killer stuff and rolls the big ones. (Sorry, drug use is the only explaination I can come up with for placing that huge of an object with a 3750 year period that close to the inner solar system.)

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif This guy was definately on something stronger than "whacky tabacky". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif You get this kind of hallucination from sugar cubes, or crack pipes. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

DStahl
2002-Jan-26, 05:15 AM
lpetrich, thank you for the hard-headed orbital calcs. Always nice to have something concrete.

Don Stahl

lpetrich
2002-Jan-26, 08:23 AM
First, I appreciate that someone appreciates my mathematics efforts /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Judging from my results, if such an extra planet was only a year or two away from near-Earth perihelion, I'm sure that it would have been seen by some comet hunter by now.

As to the planet's name, it is one given by Earthlings; the inhabitants of that planet or its satellites would have their own name for it.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-28, 02:42 PM
On 2002-01-26 03:23, lpetrich wrote:

As to the planet's name, it is one given by Earthlings; the inhabitants of that planet or its satellites would have their own name for it.


They probably call it "Earth." /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-29, 12:39 PM
On 2002-01-25 16:06, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-24 08:04, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Well, that's because he smokes the killer stuff and rolls the big ones. (Sorry, drug use is the only explaination I can come up with for placing that huge of an object with a 3750 year period that close to the inner solar system.)
I don't get ya, big guy. Are you saying, he placed that object there? As in, "created it?"


No. He is suggesting that the object exists without regard to the profound effect that an object that large would have on the solar system. Especially since he shows a rather sharp angle that the object comes in on.

Drug use, (and I will have to agree with Russ, it's much stronger than loco weed.) is the only reason I can see for suggesting such an absurd theory.

2002-Jan-30, 02:51 AM
[/quote]

No. He is suggesting that the object exists without regard to the profound effect that an object that large would have on the solar system. Especially since he shows a rather sharp angle that the object comes in on.

Drug use, (and I will have to agree with Russ, it's much stronger than loco weed.) is the only reason I can see for suggesting such an absurd theory.

[/quote]

Velikovsky didn't believe in the "theory" of gravity. He wrote an essay, called "A Universe without Gravity" where he gave 40 ways the mainstream theories of gravity are all wrong. About 36 of them are just plain wrong, and the other four are very tiny effects that were probably due to experimental error. Even if those four showed real anomolies, the anomolies would still be too small to account for the crazy orbits in his "comet theory."

He had some theory that the forces that cause orbits are really electromagnetic, not gravitational. Of course, it is quite clear that he didn't know how real electromagnetic fields work either. He made lots of incorrect coments (comets?) about both electromagnetic forces and gravity.

I don't think Vel was smoking anything. He wanted to prove that he was a genius and not as stupid as he was.

True or false, the Nemesis theory allows orbits for the star Nemesis that are consistent with Newtonian gravitation. There are no violations of mainstream physics. I don't believe it myself. However, it is much better thought out then Velikovsky's theory, who was using some Freudian psychology to justify his "physics".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2002-01-29 21:58 ]</font>

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-30, 01:01 PM
On 2002-01-29 21:51, Rosen1 wrote:



No. He is suggesting that the object exists without regard to the profound effect that an object that large would have on the solar system. Especially since he shows a rather sharp angle that the object comes in on.

Drug use, (and I will have to agree with Russ, it's much stronger than loco weed.) is the only reason I can see for suggesting such an absurd theory.



Velikovsky didn't believe in the "theory" of gravity. He wrote an essay, called "A Universe without Gravity" where he gave 40 ways the mainstream theories of gravity are all wrong. About 36 of them are just plain wrong, and the other four are very tiny effects that were probably due to experimental error. Even if those four showed real anomolies, the anomolies would still be too small to account for the crazy orbits in his "comet theory."

He had some theory that the forces that cause orbits are really electromagnetic, not gravitational. Of course, it is quite clear that he didn't know how real electromagnetic fields work either. He made lots of incorrect coments (comets?) about both electromagnetic forces and gravity.

I don't think Vel was smoking anything. He wanted to prove that he was a genius and not as stupid as he was.

True or false, the Nemesis theory allows orbits for the star Nemesis that are consistent with Newtonian gravitation. There are no violations of mainstream physics. I don't believe it myself. However, it is much better thought out then Velikovsky's theory, who was using some Freudian psychology to justify his "physics".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rosen1 on 2002-01-29 21:58 ]</font>


Somehow, I got the notion that Velikovsky thought up Nemesis. (It was actually Raup and Sepkosky) That was incorrect. The real Nemesis theory does indeed use standard Newtonian gravitation. (It's orbital period is much greater and it's nearest approach to the sun is about 20,000 au.) It claims that the star is in a highly ecliptical orbit and has been estimated to be a magnatude 7 - 12 object. (Suggested to be a red dwarf to a brown dwarf star approximately 1/10 the size of the sun.)

Although the most plausable of the "companion" theories, it has yet to be proven. (Often times it is referred to as the Nemesis Hypothesis.)

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-30, 01:27 PM
On 2002-01-30 08:01, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Somehow, I got the notion that Velikovsky thought up Nemesis. (It was actually Raup and Sepkosky)
No, it was Muller and them guys. See above. Raup and Sepkosky thought they had established the existence of a regular cycle of extinctions.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-30, 03:55 PM
On 2002-01-30 08:27, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-30 08:01, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Somehow, I got the notion that Velikovsky thought up Nemesis. (It was actually Raup and Sepkosky)
No, it was Muller and them guys. See above. Raup and Sepkosky thought they had established the existence of a regular cycle of extinctions.


Gak. Well, point being, I misstated who came up with the theory to begin with. Richard A. Muller came up with the idea circa 1983 as a possible causation for Luis Alvarez's periodic extintion hypothesis. He then got help from Piet Hut and Marc Davis to work out the orbital mechanics and distances. He published in Nature in 1984.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-30, 05:44 PM
On 2002-01-30 10:55, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Luis Alvarez's periodic extintion hypothesis
LOL. Raup and Sepkosky's.

The Alvarezes theorized about the KT boundary.

Velikovsky gets all the credit. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

AstroMike
2002-Jan-30, 07:53 PM
GrapesOfWrath: Notice that they have counted up the 12 orbs on NASA's Planetary Data System logo (they have a more detailed image) and concluded that they stand for the Sun, the nine planets, the moon, and a red tailed interloper, Planet X. If NASA has Planet X on their logo, they most know something, right?

Not really. It is my opinion that the "red-tailed interloper" likely represents a comet, perhaps the comet Chiron.

Planet X and Nemesis have been conclusively dismissed at this site (http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets/hypo.html).

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-30, 08:11 PM
On 2002-01-30 14:53, AstroMike wrote:
Not really. It is my opinion that the "red-tailed interloper" likely represents a comet, perhaps the comet Chiron.
Don't make me enable smilies, Mike, it won't be a pretty sight.

I am pretty much certain that your opinion is wrong--and I haven't even talked to anyone at NASA about it. Because, if you were right, then what is that other red orb in the
logo (http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/pds.gif)? (You may have to enhance the image to see what I am talking about.) And, what's with the vanes on the big blue one? I haven't seen a vane heavenly body since one million B.C. Surely, this is one of those cases where a logo is just a logo.

AstroMike
2002-Jan-30, 08:25 PM
GrapesOfWrath: Because, if you were right, then what is that other red orb in the logo?

I'm betting that it is Mars.

http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/pds.gif

I have enhanced the image, and I don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, but I still stand by my opinion that is a comet, not Planet X.

Valiant Dancer
2002-Jan-30, 08:35 PM
On 2002-01-30 12:44, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-01-30 10:55, Valiant Dancer wrote:
Luis Alvarez's periodic extintion hypothesis
LOL. Raup and Sepkosky's.

The Alvarezes theorized about the KT boundary.

Velikovsky gets all the credit. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! (bangs head against wall)

One of these days, I'm actually gonna get all the references right when I have other windows open showing the references.

They call me Mr. Tapioca Head.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jan-31, 12:16 PM
On 2002-01-30 15:25, AstroMike wrote:
I have enhanced the image, and I don't know what you're talking about. Sorry, but I still stand by my opinion that is a comet, not Planet X.
Well, I'm not saying it is Planet X either, but that other red one has little spikes coming off it. What are those, Martian volcanoes? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



On 2002-01-30 15:35, Valiant Dancer wrote:
They call me Mr. Tapioca Head.
They call me Mr. Bubbles.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-31, 12:59 PM
On 2002-01-31 07:16, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Well, I'm not saying it is Planet X either, but that other red one has little spikes coming off it. What are those, Martian volcanoes? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Debris from an asteroid impact? (Those Martian meteorites have to come from something!)

Avatar28
2002-Oct-08, 08:35 PM
No, the red one with the spikes represents God with a bad haircut. He was really big on punk rock at the time and did up his hair.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif