Nemesis-Sun Companion

branketra · Sep 27, 2006

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/nemesis_010320-1.html Read up on this article and state your thoughts on this. I think it does have some possible truth to it, considering the stated fact that most stars are companions to another. Interesting to think what would happen if proven to be the truth. Like Muller said though, there is no proof until there is proof.

Kalstang · Sep 27, 2006

Hrmm... interesting. If this is ever proved then we might have to give Rael a collective apology

. (at least as far as there being a star 1 LY away.....could also explain all the UFO sightings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 27, 2006

Please note that the article is 5 years old. Our knowledge of the outer solar system is vastly increased since then. We found Sedna, a fairly small (1500 km) object in an orbit wayyyyy out there. Sedna.... 2003 VB12.... 90377... Scattered Disk Object...eccentricity... 0.845...inclination.... 11.9..degrees....semimajor axis...... 491.7 AU....Period.... 10904.6 Years....perihelion.... 76.0 AU...aphehelion.... 907.4 AU...diameter.... 1500 km We have also discovered />6500 objects beyond Neptune down to a size of 7km since then. Since then Hipparcos has also measured velocities of thousands of nearby stars. No Nemesis. So the evidence is coming in that it does not exist. Note I am not saying it doesn't exist, but the odds are decreasing by the day. I think that this theory will wind up in the dustbin, but that's just my opinion, and could be wrong <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Kalstang · Sep 27, 2006

Agreed MeteorWayne. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

Boris_Badenov · Sep 27, 2006

Please note that the article is 5 years old. Black Holes were my first serious subject of interest on SDC. I read everything I could get on the topic & ran across my first reference to Nemesis while on that kick. It was variously described as a Gas Giant, a Brown Dwarf, a Red Dwarf, & a Black Hole. If it were any of these it would be hard to find by its light signature, but much easier to find by the disturbance it made in the surrounding space. I do not believe it exists. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div> </div>

robnissen · Sep 27, 2006

"Note I am not saying it doesn't exist, but the odds are decreasing by the day. I think that this theory will wind up in the dustbin, but that's just my opinion, and could be wrong." Exactly. Nemisis was a hypothesis in search of data, 20-30 years ago there was some possibility that the data was out there, we just had not discovered it yet. Now, however, we have much more data and it looks VERY unlikely that such data exists and the Nemisis hypothesis is HIGHLY likely to be false. Not to mix threads, but this is where I part company with the no ET life within the solar system crowd (cough-Steve-cough). ET life within the solar system is also a hypothesis searching for data. Currently, there is a tiny bit of data to support such a hypothesis, water on Mars in the past, an apparent salt water ocean on Europa now, perhaps liquid water on Encelatus, but there is NO evidence that is close to proving ET life exists within the solar system. But in terms of ET life in the solar system, the data we have to disprove that hypothesis is about where the Nemesis data was in 1970. Such that 35 years from now, we may be able to say with reasonable certainty that ET life does not exist in the Solar system, but TODAY we totally lack enough data to make that pronouncement now.

Kalstang · Sep 27, 2006

Agreed RobNissen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

dragon04 · Sep 27, 2006

I'm far from an Orbital Mechanic, but let me tell you why I rather doubt that the Sun has a massive companion such as "Nemesis". The real physicists can perhaps come along and tell me why I'm right or wrong, but I'll dive in anyhow. Two words. Lagrange Points. To the best of my knowledge, they are precisely calculable (even the unstable ones) using only the known masses of bodies in the solar system. It would seem to me, especially in the outer bodies of the solar system that any massive companion to the sun would be idenitfyable by anomalies in the L-points of those outer bodies. Whether those anomalies would only appear in the unstable L-Points is beyond me. Like I said. I'm not orbital mechanic. It would seem to me that if there were an object close enough, and massive enough to perturb Oort bodies and hurl them in towards the inner solar syatem, that said "companion" would reveal itself through anomalistic behavior at unstable L-Points. Now. Someone come along and educate me as to the possibility of my hypothesis, pleas? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

mikeemmert · Sep 27, 2006

I think the hypothesis is more likely to be true than not. A couple of posters here have stated that a large number of outer solar system objects have been discovered and say something like, "There is no evidence of such an object". Wrong. There is indeed such evidence. The evidence is in the disturbance of the Kuiper belt. I have a lot of references on this so there will be future posts. We did have a thread on this but that was a while ago, time to rehash it. First of all, there is an edge to the Kuiper belt at a distance of about 47 astronomical units. There is a sharp cutoff there which is best explained by the presence of a companion which cleans the edge of the Kuiper belt off. The link I have provided also shows that other star systems often have the edge of their Kuiper belts trimmed off. It is easier to see the Kuiper belts of other stars than our own; ours is spread out over the entire sky, whilst theirs are concentrated in a telescope's field of view. What is seen are vast numbers of smaller particles, who's collective surface area, by the square-cube law, is much larger than the aggregate of all the planets. It gets more interesting. Below, if it posts, is a chart of the Kuiper belt from wikipedia. I had to trim it to fit the posting limit. The x-axis on this is distance from the Sun in astronomical units. The scale is at the top and also marks the orbits of Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune and the orbital resonances such as 2:3 (Plutinos, with Pluto being the premier object of these) 3:5, or 1:2. The y-axis is orbital inclination in degrees, with the objects orbiting in the plane of the ecliptic at the bottom and increasingly steeper inclinations as you go up. Notice the blue objects. This is the "Classical" Kuiper belt. Notice

branketra · Sep 27, 2006

Very interesting, I guess we'll have to wait another 4 or so years to see if Muller guessed right.

qso1 · Sep 28, 2006

The hypothetical companion star Nemesis has been theorized for at least two decades IIRC, heres another link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(star) Such a star is within the realm of possibility, especially if its a light year away. But at that distance it may not be a companion star of the sun. It may be a passing star assuming it exists. It first popped up as a theory to explain mass extinctions on earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

qso1 · Sep 28, 2006

mikeemmert: First of all, there is an edge to the Kuiper belt at a distance of about 47 astronomical units. Me: I went to the link I posted and the theory dosn't really leave much room as to Nemesis being a passing star. 47 au is less than 5 billion miles. 1 Ly is about 63,000 au. What I'm wondering given the vast difference between the two figures, despite Nemesis being a star, albiet a red dwarf presumably. Would it really have enough gravitational influence to clean off the Oort cloud from a light year away? Probably not which indicates it would have had to have passed much closer to the sun at some point in the past. The theory holds that this star may have cause periodic (26 million years) mass extinctions. I think the question I have is, would the orbital period of this star correspond to the 26 million year periodic passages through the Oort cloud? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

mikeemmert · Sep 28, 2006

The 26 million year period is the biggest single objection to the Nemesis hypotthesis. This would require an aphelion (farthest distance from the Sun) of nearly 2 light years for a highly eccentric orbit that would bring it close enough to the Sun and the Kuiper belt to dislodge objects. If such an object had been orbiting at the same location for the entire 4 1/2 billion year history of the Solar system, then odds are very high that a random passing star would perturb the object away from the Sun. Muller got a hold of some lunar soil samples and dated glass spherules that had splashed from craters to see if they were all the same age. They were not. There were two peaks of bombardment in the samples; one 3 1/2 billion years ago, near the beginning of the history of the Solar system, and another one that started about 400 million years ago. Here's a link to Muller's paper on the subject. The scenario here is that Nemesis was originally in a closer orbit around the Sun, but a random passing star perturbed it into it's present orbit some 400 million years ago. This started a new series of impact events. A closer orbit would be a lot more stable, being closer to the Sun's gravity.

vandivx · Sep 28, 2006

if I lean back in my chair and ponder that idea, I don't find it likely cause of the periodical extinction, it strikes me as invented by a scifi fan, even if astronomically it might be feasible if I lean deeper still in my chair, I can think of a different cause behind those extinctions that do not seem to be really quite as regular as that theory of necessity would make them (regular comet like approach of sun by that companion) how about the idea that evolution of species which we know takes circuitous path and proceeds in small steps altering us bit by bit all the time, how about if there are also besides these small changes major changes, sort of like higher harmonics of evolution, which cause that the adopted path of evolution is abandoned at some point even after millions of years of development, perhaps because the major genetical change that inagurated certain kind of species simply had limited lifetime from the very outset somehow, born dead end, cul-de-sac sort of thing dying out of species then is not due to external reasons but internal, due to genetic 'abortion' after some time, even millions of years of time such genetic caused dying out could very well repeat itself without being too periodical, it would be nothing preordained like that rogue sun would be one good example besides those dinosaurs would be neanderthal man that I believe wasn't around as long as those dinosaurs but both could have ended in a similar way after all, species do die out, even if they are not killed out by hunting, it just happens and reason could be evolution dead end from genetical point of view vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Sep 28, 2006

vanDivX: if I lean back in my chair and ponder that idea, I don't find it likely cause of the periodical extinction, it strikes me as invented by a scifi fan, even if astronomically it might be feasible. Me: It actually came about a year or so after the mass extinction idea for dinosaurs started to get around. The impact event that formed the Chixalub crater being blamed for the end of the age of dinosaurs. vanDivX: such genetic caused dying out could very well repeat itself without being too periodical, it would be nothing preordained like that rogue sun would be. Me: Genetic dying out could be a possibility but a nemesis star is not necessarily a pre ordained event. Pre ordained implies that an intelligence is behind the stars cycle. A Nemesis star could be a possibility with the passages through the Oort cloud causing disrupted material to head inward towards earth. All part of just a regular cycle. However, to this date there has been no observation of a candidate Nemesis star 1 or 2 Ly distant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

Kalstang · Sep 28, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />after all, species do die out, even if they are not killed out by hunting, it just happens and reason could be evolution dead end from genetical point of view<hr /></blockquote> Actually from what I know of biology (which granted is about the size of a pea compared to most people on this board) The reason most species die out is not because of genetics but because of outside influence. And it doesnt have to be a big or even small catastrophy. (the small being mankind) There are a number of reasons that they die out. A few are.... 1) Climate changes (I dont mean drastic ones). A gradual change in temp could make either the animals that go extinct move or a predator move into each others territory. An area that they are usually not in. Or have never been in before. Because of this the "prey" doesnt know how to effectively defend itself like it did in its own area. 2) A fire caused by lightning. Which also causes the animals to leave thier natural habitat. 3) Lack of the animals normal type of food. ie they used up all of the resources that were available to them. This happens alot with livestock, and is why most people that raise livestock have to have hundreds of acres all fenced into sections so that they can regulate thier livestocks eating. Otherwise the livestock would eat everything up. Personally I think that humans could survive an impact of an astroid. Not all mind you but enough to keep our species going. For the simple fact that we are far more adaptive then any other animal thats ever been on this planet. This is assumeing a few things first... 1) the astroid doesnt wipe out the planets ability to create the kind of atmosphere we need to live. 2) how much of a warning we have before the astroid hit. If we had enough warning we could (if we all worked together with no bickering) theoretically build a spaceship that could survive a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

Kalstang · Sep 28, 2006

Interesting links there. So Nemisis still seems to be going strong in some circles. Question. Could it be possible for Nemisis to be orbiting our sun opposite of us? and staying opposite? It would need to be traveling at a pretty high speed to make up the difference of space between how far it is from the sun and our distance to the sun. But is it possible? As far as I know we havent looked directly on the opposite side of the sun from us. (have we yet?) I suppose any of the probs we sent out could have detected it. But would they have if they werent looking for it since we're not actively looking for it? Just a theory. Could prolly be debunked quite easily by someone here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

qso1 · Sep 28, 2006

mikeemmert: The 26 million year period is the biggest single objection to the Nemesis hypotthesis. This would require an aphelion (farthest distance from the Sun) of nearly 2 light years for a highly eccentric orbit that would bring it close enough to the Sun and the Kuiper belt to dislodge objects. Me: That answers my question as to what the aphelion would have to be, thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

search · Sep 28, 2006

Latest(April 2006) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060424180559.htm Mass Limit on Nemesis from 2005 (If Nemesis would exist): Abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502390 PDF: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0502/0502390.pdf How Nemesis idea started, evolved and future scientific research: http://www.answers.com/topic/nemesis-star Same and it will lead to another site already below (Other Hypotesis) http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961130b1.html Several other sites: OLD from 1987: http://128.3.7.51/Science-Articles/Archive/extinctions-nemesis.html Watch out for the "Best Sellers" marketing approaches... http://www.ids.ias.edu/~piet/act/geo/Nemesis/index.html Other Hypotesis: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis Old Abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.282..696W If you go to the link below and click Nemesis in search you will find more articles related: http://www.nature.com/index.html Binary Research Institute (founded in 2001).Binary theory (do not let the name impress you. The founder Walter

alokmohan · Sep 28, 2006

Originally perturbation of Uranus was the moot question.Percival Lowell mooted the idea planet x,Nemesus is one of those line of thought.It exists like Powells planetx.Once it was thought pluto is planet x.Now we know ,no.Nemesis is definitely a possibility.So far we dont know.It is a good thread no doubt.

mikeemmert · Sep 28, 2006

Thank you for your observations, vanDivX. I certainly agree that comets/asteroids are not the only causes of mass extinctions. I think it is a problem, sometimes, that when it was proved that the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event was caused by a collision of an extraterrestrial object, there was too much of a tendency to extend that cause to all mass extinctions. Impacts leave easily observable evidence. There is the crater, although there is no guarantee that the crater has not been erased by tectonic activity; there is the iridium, which is a much better marker and leaves evidence where it can be found through dedicated searching; there are tectites, little spherules of melted glass that also can be found through dedicated searching of places unlikely to have been disturbed; and there are other things, such as soot and ash. In those cases where such evidence is not found after a reasonably thorough search, we can conclude that the mass extinction event was not caused by a collision, but by something else. Unfortunately, in many of those cases the cause does not leave such obvious evidence. The best example is the Permian-Triassic extinction event. When the cause of the K-T (Cretaceous-Tertiary event, the extintion of the dinosaurs) was found, a search was immediately started for evidence in the case of the P-T extinction. And no such evidence was found. So the mystery remained as to what did cause it. It is now believed to have been caused by a pluton, a blob of molten rock, reached the Earth's surface in Siberia at that time, and that there was a lot of unoxidized rock in the magma. This pulled most of the oxygen out of the atmosphere. The evidence for that is more subtle and it's harder to prove (note I said "believed to have been caused by"...). The most recent mass extinction, the Megafaunal extinction which took the Mammoths, Giant Ground Sloths, and the PaleoIndians just 8500 years ago, also did

alokmohan · Sep 28, 2006

Other than impact theory we have the volcanic eruption theory.Like Krakatoa eruption.The combined effects of pyroclastic flows, volcanic ashes and tsunamis had disastrous results in the region. There were no survivors from 3,000 people located at the island of Sebesi, about 13 km from Krakatoa. Pyroclastic flows killed around 1,000 people at Ketimbang on the coast of Sumatra some 40 km north from Krakatoa. The official death toll recorded by the Dutch authorities was 36,417 and many settlements were destroyed, including Teluk Betung and Ketimbang in Sumatra, and Sirik and Semarang in Java. The areas of Banten on Java and the Lampong on Sumatra were devastated. There are numerous documented reports of groups of human skeletons floating across the Indian Ocean on rafts of volcanic pumice and washing up on the east coast of Africa, up to a year after the eruption. Some land on Java was never repopulated; it reverted to jungle and is now the Ujung Kulon National Park.

yevaud · Sep 28, 2006

You might find this interesting then: Adapting Itself Into Oblivion? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Differential Diagnosis: "I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are." </div>

MeteorWayne · Sep 28, 2006

Mike, Great reply. A few points for further discussion. There does indeed appear to be a fairly sharp cutoff in the aphelia of classic KBO's. Whether the presence of a massive companion is the best explanation is debatable. There are ather explanations. IIRC, the paper that proposed the migration of the gas giants for the formation of the KB, also provides an explanation for the cutoff. That's only from my memory, so I'll dig out the paper and reread it. That zone is in a 1:2 resonance with Neptune, home of the twotinos. (~ 47.6 AU semimajor axis), I think that was the reason for the cutoff. Now to the chart you provided, which is a great one, BTW. I used it in my Pluto descission. I don't really see a bimodal distribution of inclinations. I see a large group of low inclination objects, which may or may not be a selection effect, since that's where we spend the most time looking, and objects are more concentrated. Then, there are scattered objects in the KB up to inlinations of about 35 degrees. Several of these are the larger outer solar system objects, and in the KB, only 2 of the larger KBO's are near 30 degrees, there are 3 near 20 degrees, and 3 near 25 degrees. However, I don't think the quantity shows a peak in this area. When time permits, I will separate out the Classic KBOS and do a distribution of the inclinations. We'll see what it shows. At this point, we are still filling in the non-ecliptic population of the solar system, so it's too early to draw conclusions. It's not too early to speculate a bit, though <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

Kalstang · Sep 28, 2006

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We've looked on and around all the major planets and most of the minor moons<hr /></blockquote> Partially false. We have not looked near as hard as we need to in order to find micro organisims on ANY planet, moon, astroid, whatever with the one exception of Earth. The closest we've come is the landers on Mars. Thats it and they havent even explored 1/8 of Mars much less the areas that have a higher probability of life. Once again.... <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Since you have such a strong conviction that these beliefs are SOOOO false then I challenge you to prove that they are false. It's quite simple to do (if you know how). All you have to do is explore the entire universe and study everything in it. Once you do this then and only then will people know that there is no other form of life other then organic types that need water. Assuming of course that you find no other types of life. Why is it that if there is supposedly so much proof that there is no life out there that so many scientists which include astrobiologists agree that the possibility of life out there is very real?<hr /></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. "Imagination is more important then Knowledge" ~Albert Einstien~ Guns dont kill people. People kill people.Solar System </div>

Nemesis-Sun Companion

branketra

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

Boris_Badenov

Guest

robnissen

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

dragon04

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

branketra

Guest

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

vandivx

Guest

qso1

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

qso1

Guest

search

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

mikeemmert

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

yevaud

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

Kalstang

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page