our sun part of a binary system?

spacefire · Sep 14, 2005

and its orbit causes the rise and fall of civilizations? http://www.spacedaily.com/news/extrasolar-05zt.html <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

CalliArcale · Sep 14, 2005

This is not as revolutionary or as new an idea as the author would have you think. I first read about it in the old Time-Life books in my grandparents' basement -- published in the mid-60s! In fact, the concept was touted much earlier as an explanation for comets. The usual name given to the hypothetical companion is Nemesis. As yet, no one has found it. If it exists, it is either very dim or has a staggeringly long orbital period. There was a poster on this board a number of years ago (I can't remember who it was; if they're still here, I hope they'll speak up and assist my faulty memory!) who was working on the idea that it was actually Barnard's Star, suggesting that this highly blueshifted red dwarf might be a companion of our Sun. I don't know how plausible that is; I lack the expertise to study this myself. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dragon04 · Sep 14, 2005

Ooookay. Time to get in over my head here. Are the current Earth/Sol Lagrange points calculated taking only Sol and Earth into account? If Venus and Mercury are also figured into this, that's okay. They're irrelevant to my next question. IF the sun had a companion massive enough to be considered a binary companion, wouldn't that point itself out when calcualting Earth/Sol Lagrange points? I would think that calculated and actual L points would be measurably different if a binary companion was present. I guess what I'm trying to point out is that were there a massive companion to Sol, I would think L points would have to be constantly recalculated. Am I missing something here? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

CalliArcale · Sep 14, 2005

If there is a companion, it has to be very distant to have escaped detection. It definintely doesn't perturb Earth orbit enough to be noticable, since calculations of things like Sun-Earth lagrange points work out just fine without taking such a companion into account. Now, how could the Sun have a companion without the orbits of inner solar system objects being screwed up? If it's remote. But doesn't a star have tremendous gravity, even if it's just a red dwarf? Yes, but gravitational attraction decreases according to the inverse square law, which means that as you move away from the object, its gravitational attraction decreases at a rate proportional to the inverse square of the distance between you and it. Once you get far enough away, almost anything is negligible for most purposes. Heck, there's a supermassive black hole at the core of our galaxy, but it's so far away that its effect is negligible when doing basic celestial mechanics within the solar system; for instance, predicting the positions of planets in the solar system a century from now. You are correct that a companion star would be likely to perturb orbits around the Sun. Since it doesn't measurably perturb Earth's orbit, it must not be very close by. It doesn't even measurably perturb the gas giants. (For a time, astronomers believed something planet-sized was perturbing the orbit of Neptune, but this effect turned out to be an error in the observations; with corrected observations, the effect disappeared.) So if there's something out there pitching comets in towards Earth, it must be either very small (i.e. a large planet, not a star) or very distant. The theory that it's a planet is popular among some; they call it Planet X, Planet 10, Nibiru, or any number of other names. But no such planet has been detected; like the hypothetical star, if it's there, it has thus far escaped detection, which means it's probably small or distant or both. Incidentally <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mrmux · Sep 14, 2005

Calli, Just how far away could a plausible solar companion be and still be in (obviously very tenous) orbit? Also, would a highly eliptical Sol-polar orbit be sufficient to protect the planets from the worst of its perturbing effects? It's something a few of us have discussed on dmjspace's Deep Impact Predictions thread, but without conclusion. Would love to know if it's been modelled?

vogon13 · Sep 14, 2005

1 lightyear? Alpha Centauri is ~4ly, and if you wanted a little insurance on keeping it around for a while. Would entertain other ideas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!So many people, so few recipes !!Let's clean up this stinkhole !! </div>

Saiph · Sep 14, 2005

If barnards is highly blueshifted, it isn't a companion star of the sun. At those speeds it's orbit can only be hyprobolic at best. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

serak_the_preparer · Sep 15, 2005

So if there's something out there pitching comets in towards Earth, it must be either very small (i.e. a large planet, not a star) or very distant... An interesting theory, to be sure. If there's any truth to it at all, it would seem that Dr. Richard A. Muller's take on the sun's binary status is most likely to be correct. That is, that the cycle is on the order of a 26-million-year orbit, as opposed to the 24,000-year period advocated by Cruttenden. Which might also explain the jostling of objects orbiting at the edge of the solar system which may lead to periodic mass extinctions here on Earth. I recommend Ask the Experts: Geology: What ever happened to the theory of periodic mass extinctions? (Scientific American), where a rather succinct overview of the idea by various experts is available. Here's an excerpt from the response provided by paleontology professor J. John Sepkoski, Jr., of the University of Chicago, one of the discoverers of the cyclic aspect of mass extinctions: "The fossils show a statistical variation in extinction rates having a period of approximately 26 million years. The two periodic peaks of extinction after the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary, 65 million years ago, are at the end of the Eocene (roughly 37 million years ago) and in the Middle Miocene (about 17 million years ago). "Raup and I had initially performed a coarser analysis of the fossil record, focusing on extinctions at the family level (one level above genus in the taxonomic hierarchy). That analysis conformed to a 26-million-year periodic series, but it was missing two beats: one in the late Middle Jurassic (170 million years ago) and one in the Early Cretaceous (95 million years ago). Our hypothesis predicted that more extensive data offering finer time resolution would reveal that small extinction events occurred

silylene old · Sep 15, 2005

An interesting graphic on extinction timings can be found here. Unfortunately it is too detailed and big to post. click here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center">I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function. </div> </div>

dragon04 · Sep 16, 2005

What I was getting at, Calli, is don't you think that a binary companion of Sol could be inferred by measurable shifts in Lagrange points? I guess I'm taking the stance that a binary companion of Sol is hogwash. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

CalliArcale · Sep 16, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />What I was getting at, Calli, is don't you think that a binary companion of Sol could be inferred by measurable shifts in Lagrange points?<hr /></blockquote> It would depend on where the binary companion was and how massive it was. The more distant and the smaller it is, the less effect it will have on the inner solar system. You wouldn't detect it by shifts in Lagrange points, though; Lagrange points aren't really detectable unless something resides on them. Lagrange points are something you calculate, not something you find. But you would detect it by shifts in the orbits of actual objects, such as the Earth itself. (A Lagrange point won't shift without the planet's orbit shifting also. If something's big enough to disrupt that point, it'll perturb the planet.) <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I guess I'm taking the stance that a binary companion of Sol is hogwash.<hr /></blockquote> To be honest, I have the same stance. While I respect those who continue to hunt for Nemesis, I don't think it's likely they'll ever find it. I give more credence to the notion that successive passes by stars not a part of the solar system caused perturbations in the comets from time to time, although it's much harder to detect and prove since each pass would've been an isolated one-time event. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Sep 16, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />IN fact, Pluto was found observing the perturbation of Neptune's orbit.<hr /></blockquote> Not exactly. Pluto doesn't perturb Neptune's orbit enough to find it that way. In fact, the apparent variations in Neptune's orbits turned out to actually be calculation errors. By pure chance, however, the wrong calculations predicted that there would be an object right where Pluto happened to be at the time. It was complete luck. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

However, neptune was found by perturbations of Uranus' orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

drwayne · Sep 16, 2005

"however, the wrong calculations predicted that there would be an object right where Pluto happened to be at the time. It was complete luck." In similar fashion, have you read much on the discovery of Neptune? It is another interesting story in which a planet was discovered using predictions made based on assumptions (in this case Bode's law) that were incorrect. There is also international intrigue involved between England and France. An interesting story on Clyde Tombaugh, the discoverer of Pluto. When he made his discovery, he had not gone to college. When he subsequently went, and enrolled, dutifully in intoruductory astronomy - the instructor threw him out - indicated that he was not going to have the discoverer of Pluto taking his class - go take something more advanced. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

drwayne · Sep 16, 2005

That (the perturbations) was the *reason* that Neptune was hunted for. It was not in fact the means by which it was discovered. The story of Adams and Leverrier is a fascinating one - one that an astronomy professor of mine at Vassar had me read - he also had me read up on Tombaugh. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Saiph · Sep 16, 2005

I remember the conflict that several caclulations were wrong (and they looked in the wrong spot) but one finally ended them in the ballpark? Then again, it's been awhile since I looked at it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

dragon04 · Sep 17, 2005

While it's no less arbitrary for me to say what's coming next as opposed to those who feel that there is a "Nemesis", let's talk Oort cloud for a moment. It seems intuitive to me that were there a comapnion to Sol that was massive enough to categorize the Sol system as a binary, that the solar system would see more comets on an order of magnitude than we do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!". </div>

jatslo · Sep 17, 2005

I can imagine that if the two bodies were not equal in mass, then matter would most definitely get thrown around as they approached one another every 26-million-years or so as well. The effects of these phenomena, if it were true, should be observable through chaotic behavior. An increase in comet and asteroid activity would most definitely be cause for alarm. Observatories in this regard should, in my opinion, be HIGH-priority. In terms of companion, our companion could be a brown-dwarf, which would be difficult to spot with conventional technology. There could very well be something rather large out there that flings buckshot towards the inner solar system every 26-million-years or so, and it does not have to be a star. It would be difficult to overcome boredom in this regard, if I were not allowed to speculate, and flex my imagination.

nexium · Sep 28, 2005

Up to several solar mass is possible for a binary companion of Sol, provided it has been more than 5 light years away in recent centuries. Close approach would occur at perhaps billion year intervals. If it is presently 5 light years away; it will be at least 10 million years before it's next close approach. The last approach may have been final, as 5 light years away means eventually the orbit will be changed by other nearby stars such that a return to the vicinity of Sol will be delayed by many billions of years. Neil

mariecurie · Sep 29, 2005

Jupiter is our binary star. We just have to wait around for it to grow up. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Anyone who ever read "The Jupiter Theft" by Donald Moffit" knows that. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <Jupiter is known as the "failed star" because if he were a little bigger his enormous gravity would trigger nuclear fusion. His gravity and heat already cause him to be luminous through the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism. <Jupiter is 90% hydrogen and 10% helium, with methane, water, ammonia and rock. <It has a rocky core comprised of liquid metallic hydrogen which generates Jupiters extremely strong magnetic field. It has no mantle. <from "Interactive Astronomy" website In fact it is believed that for the first million years of its history, Jupiter was more than 10,000 times as luminous as it is today and that it produced a strong temperature gradient in its neighbourhood.(ThinkQuest) If you have to wait for our sun to start circling Jupiter or a barycenter in order to classify ours as a binary system, well... I don't know. Hey, I'm just butterfly compared to you big-wigs here but if a star shines, a star shines. (tic) Pinprick holes in a colorless sky; let insipid figures of light pass by. The mighty light of 10,000 suns, challenges infinity & is soon gone. Nighttime, to some, a brief interlude, to others, the fear of solitude. Brave Helios wake up your steeds; bring the warmth the countryside needs.... Moody Blues.

nexium · Sep 29, 2005

Hi steve: If this alleged companion of Sol has come within one light year 5 times in the past 4.6 billion years: What is the probability that it passed closer than one light year of Alpha or Beta Centarii in the past 4.6 billion years? Will more distant passes of Centarii perturb the companion (assume 1.2 solar mass) sufficiently to prevent Sol from orbiting it's companion? (Keep in mind a 1/2 light year pass of Centarii has an even chance of improving the Sol orbit rather than damaging it) Let's assume previous farthest distances from Sol were 3, 3.3, 5.1 and 5.5 light years and it is presently approaching (approximately) Sol from a distance of 5.2 light years. Don't forget to think three dimentions instead of two, and keep in mind that a typical asteroid that passes within a million kilometers of Earth, typically misses by much greater distances about 90% of the close approaches. I can't do the math, but perhaps you or another can make an estimate of the probability of a close approach to Centarii. Even if the probability was very low for 5 orbits, it still fits some definitions of orbit if it did it 5 times. Neil

mariecurie · Sep 29, 2005

The "little bit bigger" was actualy a quote. My whole post was meant to be tongue in cheek. I know Jupiter is considered a gas giant and for it to become a star it would have to grow far more than is likely, even considering the way it acts as the solar system's sweeper. Still, doesn't it glow like an ember? I seem to recall that it does and is very bright when seen from it's moons. One article I quoted seemed to imply that also.

nexium · Sep 29, 2005

The cloud tops of Jupiter glow in infrared more like a big ball of liquid air than they glow like an ember. Neil

mariecurie · Sep 29, 2005

I have never seen a big ball of liquid air. What does that look like?

bonzelite · Oct 8, 2005

if anything, we are already a binary system several times over. jupiter, saturn, maybe neptune and uranus. there is no "fusion" going on inside the sun. and jupiter and/or saturn, if any star is to be had from them, were ALREADY stars and are now dimmed. remember that jupiter generates more heat from within than is received by the sun, with it's strong radiation belts and magentic field evidence of an electrical current generated BY the planet. for any fusion reactions to occur at all, standard theory requires that the temperature in a star's core must reach at least THREE MILLION K. and because, in this status quo model, core temperature rises with gravitational pressure, the star must have a minimum mass of about 75 times the mass of the planet jupiter, or about 7 percent of the mass of our sun to begin "fusion" reactions. many of the dwarf stars do not meet the mass and temperature requirements to sustain nuclear fusion. yet they exist. stars do not use fusion to create energy. if fusion exists, it is not happening in the sun at least.

our sun part of a binary system?

spacefire

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

dragon04

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

mrmux

Guest

vogon13

Guest

Saiph

Guest

serak_the_preparer

Guest

silylene old

Guest

dragon04

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

Saiph

Guest

drwayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

dragon04

Guest

jatslo

Guest

nexium

Guest

mariecurie

Guest

nexium

Guest

mariecurie

Guest

nexium

Guest

mariecurie

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page