This recent item in Viewzone is a
bit of a job to wade through but we do expand our knowledge of the Earth Sirius
system. We are presently travelling back
toward Sirius on our long orbit of somewhere between 100,000 to 200,000
years. This shows up nicely in the
Antarctic ice cores and I suggest readers read my notes on the Vostok Core in
this blog.
Not too surprisingly Ancient and
by now that means in this blog that Atlantean scholarship was able to sort all
this out and arrived at using Sirius as a sighting line for measuring time to a
better accuracy that anything we can do.
Rather obviously, if we orbit through the Sirius cluster and we are presently
a long ways away, then Sirius will be the point in the sky with the least
movement over the long term. This makes
it ideal for those pinhole sightlines.
This work here solidifies the
importance of Sirius in the two thousand year astronomical tradition of the
Atlantean global culture that took their bronze Age knowledge around the world.
Viwzone has excellent
illustrations, but I suggest that you first read the text to understand the arguments
before you tackle the illustrated version.
It get too cluttered otherwise.
Sirius
A Companion to our Sun?
By William Brown
The vast majority of observable stars are binary or multiple star
systems. In these systems, two or more stars share a common focus of revolution
and are gravitationally bound to each other in defined orbits. This is such a
common observation such that the gravitational interaction of multiple stars
appears to be the "normal" mode of stellar system formation.
This is logical because stars are formed in nebulae that are
"stellar nurseries" [right] where great conglomerates of light
elements formed during the Big Bang while heavy elements were synthesized in
the heart of giant, primordial stars, and were ejected upon their disruption.
Special note should be made of the many complex organic compounds permeating
such nebulae [1,2], because of the implications for cosmic biogenesis and
panspermia -- theories which hold that life has an extrasolar origenesis.
The Spire [right]. This column of star forming material is 57
trillion miles long.
The close proximity of stars to each other upon formation clearly
involves a high probability for gravitational binding, assuming that astral
formations aren't directly driven by binary interactions (which could very well
be the case). Intellectually this establishes the basis for a dual-star
interaction within our Solar System. It is generally presumed that the Sun is a
unique exception to this commonly observed phenomenon, however, observational
evidence suggests that the Sun is moving in a defined orbit around a companion
system of stars.
Evidence is plentiful for the support of a model involving the
interaction of multiple stars in our solar system and will be presented in this
article. Also, multiple flaws abound in the centuries-old models of heliocentricism
that were formed before it was understood that the solar system moves through
space.
Dark Star or Nemesis?
Is the idea of a solar companion to our Sun unprecedented? Not at all,
in fact there have been numerous scientific publications examining the evidence
for a "dark star", literally speaking, to which our Sun could be
gravitationally bound in a definite orbit [3]. This alternate dark star is
known as Nemesis, and its proposition comes primarily from observed
perturbations of orbiting objects such as the planet-sized Kuiper belt object
named Sedna [4].
###
The Pllars of Creation - A Hubble Telescope image of the Eagle
Nebula within the constellation Serpens. The light of super-massive stars can
be seen shining forth.
Walter Cruttenden of the Binary Star research institute has propounded
that a solar companion need not necessarily be of the "dark star"
variety. Given the paucity of empirical observations and measurements of the
movement of many of the bright stars within our own local galactic sector, it
is with some justification that visible stars be examined to see if any may
share a common focal point with our own Solar System [5]. At the heart of the
poly-solar system theory is a simplification of the mechanics of constellation
precession (precession observable) with a more logical model, one that does not
rely on a putative wobble of the Earth but instead explains the precession
observable with the movement of the Solar System itself.
Who is our Sun's twin?
Is there a candidate for binary revolution among the visible stars?
Logically we could begin with the closest star to our own, which is Alpha
Centauri. At a distance of 4.37 light years, it is the third brightest star
and, as is common, it is itself a binary system.
Another star that shows evidence of being gravitationally bound within
the system and is called Alpha Proxima. Alpha Proxima is 0.2 light years from Alpha Centauri AB , about
400 times the distance of Neptune 's orbit from
the Sun. This shows that a dual or poly star system does not have to necessarily
be in close orbital interaction. However Alpha Centauri lies at a declination
of -60°, which is well out of the plane of the Solar System, and as such, has a
near circumpolar motion in the sky.
A more suitable candidate would be a star closer to the plane of the
Solar System, or celestial equator. Sirius meets this criteria, at a
declination of -17°. It is also the brightest star in the night sky, three
times brighter than Alpha Centauri and twice as bright as the next brightest
star Canopus
Imagine that you are holding hands with a friend, face to face. If you
both began to spin around in a circle, your friend would appear to be
stationary, while everything around them would appear to be spinning very
rapidly. Your joined hands would be the focal point of the revolving motion.
While the surrounding environment would not be spinning around, it would appear
to be from you perspective.
This illustrates how the perception of both you and your friend can be
very illusionary -- you see yourselves as relatively stationary while the
background whirls around you. This is very similar to our situation with
respect to observations of celestial motion between the Sun and its solar
companions. Our observation of this phenomenon is more complex in that we must
also factor in the orbital motion of the Earth and planets around the Sun.
Celestial bodies in our Solar System show harmonic resonance with the
Sirius system. Pluto and Sedna are at an incline to the plane of the solar
system of roughly 17°, the same as Sirius. Both have orbital periods of 250
years and 12,000 years, which are at 1:5 and 1:2 resonances with Sirius,
respectively (12,000 years is roughly one half of the orbit of the Sun around
Sirius, hence a 1:2 resonance).
Resonance is a criterion stipulated for any system of orbiting bodies,
which is why planets and moons are often times tidally locked with their parent
body, and is another reason why the hypothesis of a putative wobble is very
unappealing. A wobble is indicative of dynamic instability, not harmonic
resonance (think of a spinning top before it falls, it begins to wobble).
A Sirius Candidate
Sirius is a binary system. Sirius A is the highly visible star, but
there is a companion known as Sirius B, first described in modern times by the
Dogon tribe of Mali (Africa ) and subsequently verified by the observational
science of astronomers. The Dogon also described a third celestial body with
characteristics of a neutron star. While a neutron wouldn't be visible in the
same manner as Sirius B, the combined gravitational attraction of a neutron
star, a white giant star and a white dwarf would certainly provide the
gravitational force needed to keep the Sun bound at a distance of 8.6 light
years. In fact, the presence of a neutron star is by no means necessary for the
gravitational interaction of the Sun with Sirius.
Historic and mythological descriptions of Sirius provides further
insight into the nature of the relationship between the Sun and Sirius. A shaft
leading from the Queens chamber of the Great Pyramid of Egypt
When European philosophers first hypothesized that the Earth revolves
around the Sun it was a radical and revolutionary idea of that era. Nicholas
Copernicus developed the model and scientific explanation by which the Earth
revolved around the Sun, and proponents of the model expounded it after its
posthumous publication in 1543. The process of overturning the geocentric model
of the Solar System, where the stationary Earth was at the center of the
Universe, was not an easy venture and came to be known as the Copernican
Revolution. Like most ideas that challenge the existing paradigm, it was not
well received by most philosophers of the day. This is evident in the following
discourse concerning a lecture given by Giordano Bruno at Oxford University
"When that Italian Didapper, who intituled himself Philotheus
Iordanus Brunus Nolanus, magis elaborata Theologia Doctor, etc., with a name
longer then his body, had in the traine of Alasco the Polish Duke, seene [sic]
our University in the year 1583, his hart was on fire, to make himself by some
worthy exploite, to become famous in that celebrious place. Not long after
returning againe, when he had more boldly then wisely, got up into the highest
place of our best and most renowned schoole, stripping up his sleeves like some
juggler ... he undertook among very many other matters to set on foote the
opinion of Copernicus, that the earth did goe round, and the heavens did stand
still; wheras in truth it was his owne head which rather did run round, and his
braines did not stand still..."[8]
As can be seen by this malicious retort, the best monds of Oxford
Certain celestial movements could not be explained by the model
however, such as the precession of the zodiacal constellations, whereby
the stars associated with the constellations of the zodiac move
retro-progressively across the sky over long epochs of time.
In precession there is a retrograde movement, which means that the
stars of the Zodiac move backwards in relation to the overall progression of
the celestial sphere. So while the Sun is observed to rise in a given
constellation of the zodiac at a given date, say the constellation Pisces on
the Spring Equinox of March 21st, over time it is observed that Pisces rises
sooner and sooner each year. Eventually, after about 2150 years, the Sun is no
longer rising in Pisces on March 21st, but is rising in a different
constellation altogether, like Aquarius. This is a retro-progression because it
is opposite of the apparent direction of the Sun within a single year, where
the Sun moves in the opposite direction of the precession through the zodiacal
band of stars, so from January to February the Sun appears to travel from
Aquarius into Pisces.
This progression is due to the movement of the Earth around the Sun,
and not the Sun around the Earth, as was purposed in the geocentric model.
However the retro-progression cannot be explained by the movement of the Earth
around the Sun, therefore, an additional revolving movement was introduced.
Since it was known that the Earth was tilted on its axis, it was
hypothesized that the Earth wobbles around this axial tilt in a precise manner
every 26,000 years. This would explain the precession of the Zodiac stars, as
it takes about 2150 years for each Zodiac constellation to precede and there
are 12 constellations (well there use to be until the introduction of the 13th
constellation Ophiuchus into the Zodiac, which is a more harmonious
configuration to the natural order) that equals approximately 26,000 years.
Problems with the wobble
By what mechanism is a secondary retrograde rotation of the axis itself
induced? The theory that was posited came to be known as Lunisolar
Precession [right]. It was hypothesized that torque from the Sun and Moon
supplied a force that perturbed the orientation of the axis, causing it to
wobble. I call this the "Wobble Hypothesis".
When you take into account all the rotational motions and orbital paths
of these three bodies (i.e. the Sun, Earth and Moon) it is staggering to think
that a uniform force could be applied to generate a stable enough torque to
maintain a 26,000 year periodicity through the precessional cycles.
It should be noted that this number -- 26,000 years -- is rounded off
and is not a stable time-line for the precession. The actual precession
proceeds with temporal fractionalization [9], where in measurements from 1900's
to 1990 it increased from 25,800 years to 25,920 years. The phenomenon of
temporal fractionalization, whereby time accelerates in fractals so that more
cycles are fit into shorter periods, was well known to the Mayans and is an
intrinsic part of their Calendars, regarded as some of the most accurate
measurements of time to this day [10]. Furthermore the interactions of the
numerous other celestial bodies of the solar system were not even considered,
as well as the oblate geometry of the Earth, and as such the mathematical
models have been continually altered in an attempt to manufacture a proper
solution.
The history of the lunisolar precession model is one of problems,
revisions, and the continuous addition of new inputs. Newtons
This information by itself raises serious questions about the
validity of the "Wobble Hypothesis". However the major flaw of this
hypothesis comes from an examination of the static position of the star Sirius
in relation to precession and its historical utilization as a marker for time
in the Sothic Calendar of the Egyptians.
From Africa, where the Dogons live, the star Sirius disappears below
the horizon and is out of sight for a couple of months; then it appears again
on the morning of July 23, when it rises about one minute before the Sun. It
appears bright ruby-red, just above the horizon, almost exactly due east. Sixty
seconds later the Sun emerges. So you can see Sirius for just a moment, then
it's gone. This is called the helical rising of Sirius, which was a very
important moment for most of the ancient world, not just for the Dogons and Egypt
This is the moment when Sirius and the Sun and the Earth are in a
straight line across space. In Egypt Egypt
The periodicity of the helical rising of Sirius was such that the
Egyptians based their calendar on it [right]. Every year for millennia the
appearance of Sirius coincided with the flooding of the Nile ,
an event that remarakbly still happens to this day.
This fact alone betrays the blatant flaw in the current consensus model
for the precession of the Zodiac. With the "Wobble Hypothesis", the
Zodiac stars aren't actually moving; they are fixed in place. The apparent
retrograde motion is only the result of the transient shift of the equinoxes.
Therefore it receives it's much more common and well known description as
"the Precession of the Equinoxes". In this consensus model, the
equinoxes are occurring at different locations within the Earth's orbit around
the Sun, and since they are occurring at different locations there is a
different backdrop of stars.
The equinoxes and solstices are a function of the 23.6° tilt of the
Earth's axis. When the tilt is facing the Sun, the Northern hemisphere is in
summer because it is receiving more sunlight and there are more daylight hours
-- the days are longer and the nights are shorter. When the tilt is away from
the Sun, the Northern hemisphere is in winter. This is opposite for the
Southern hemisphere. The midpoints between these two extremes are the
equinoxes, where the length of day and night are equal.
The equinoxes retrogress because the tilt is changing its orientation
to the Sun as it wobbles about. This causes the equinoxes, as well as the
solstices to occur in different locations in the Earth’s orbit [right]. The
problem is that if the equinoxes and solstices were occurring at different
locations then Sirius could not have a precise helical rising every July 23rd
from the latitude of Egypt
All of the equatorial backdrop of stars would retrogress with the
wobble of the Earth, and thus Sirius would have a helical rising that regresses
throughout the Year, occurring at all different seasons throughout the 26,000
year cycle (see figure 5). The only stars that would remain relatively fixed
are those at the poles, although they would still have minor perturbations
themselves. But his is not what is observed. As Jed Buchwald,
professor of the history of science at Caltech, states:
"Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes -- and
so from the solstices -- throughout these many centuries, despite
precession" [13].
The Helical rising of Sirius in the summer, showing how the Sun and
Sirius become aligned along the horizon of the Earth as it rotates into the
light of the Sun. Similarly the Sun and Sirius are aligned in the winter as
well, however, because Sirous is on the outside it appears directly above the
Sun as it rises in the winter. This is the source of the Star of Bethlehem
The Solstice would occur at A, but because of the retrograde wobble of
the axis (b), winter now occurs at C.
Figure 5: The wobble of the Earth's axis causes the seasons to occur at
transient locations in the Earth's orbit during the cycle of the precession of
the Zodiac. If the precession were due to the wobble, then Sirius would shift
with the equatorial stars as well, and occur in a different season
corresponding to the specific alignment.
These inconsistencies are resolved in the new precessional paradigm.
First off, the seasons do not regress with the precession of the
Zodiac. They remain fixed in their location relative to the Sun. But not
loci-static in the orbital revolution around Sirius. That is, seasons occur at
different positions relative to Sirius (see figure 6). However the Sun's
revolution around Sirius is so eccentric and long that perturbations in the
position of Sirius are not perceived until the Sun reaches apastron. Apastron
is the point in a star's orbit where it is furthest from its orbital companion,
this is intrinsic to the nature of elliptical orbits. As the Sun revolves
around Sirius, the zodiacal constellations shift location and appear to have a
retro-progressional movement across the sky over epochs of time.
Figure 6: The Sun orbits around Sirius, and as it does so the backdrop
of stars forming the Zodiac constellations change location. However the
location of these seasons occur at the same position within the Earth's orbit
around the Sun.
As the Sun passes through the apastron points approximately every
13,000 years, Sirius would indeed appear to have a precessional migration
across the sky, until eventually the heliacal rising would occur in the winter
(see figure 7). And this is fine, because it does not violate any historical
recordings of the behavior of Sirius. In fact, a review of the highly advanced
Babylonian astronomy shows that this was actually described.
Figure 7: The term Nibiru is well known, and equally misunderstood. The
Babylonians used it more as a descriptive term than a name representing a
specific object. In Babylonian Astronomy it was used to describe a star -- not
a planet -- as can be seen in the following examples from translations by
Horowitz [14]: The Helical rising of Sirius as the Sun orbits it. Since the
location of the solstices and the equinoxes are occurring at the same location
within the Earth's orbit around the Sun, the helical rising is switched when
the Sun reaches the opposite point in its orbit.
* He [Marduk in context] set fast the position of Nibiru to fix their
[the stars] bounds."
*"...let Nibiru be the holder of the crossing place of the heaven
and of the earth."
*...the red star which stands in the south after the gods of the night
[the stars] have been finished, dividing the sky in half, this star is Nibiru,
(i.e., Marduk)." (note it's a red star, and this is often how the Ancients
described Sirius)
* "Nibiru is his [marduk's in context] star, which he made appear
in the heavens ... The stars of heaven, let him [Nibiru] set their course; let
him shepherd all the gods like sheep."
What can be seen clearly here is that the term nibiru is being used to
describe a star, that this star sets the course of the other stars, that is to
say that it is the source of their precession, and that it is the crossing
point.
It is my supposition that Nibiru is referred to as a "crossing
point" because when the Sun passed apastron and began its opposite
revolution, Sirius would cross the sky. Not only did this crossing of Sirius
mark the turning point in the Sun's orbit, but also the turning point in the
Yuga cycles.
The new Sun-Sirius system model satisfies the observational behavior of
Sirius and the constellations of the zodiac as they regress throughout the
great cycle of 26,000 years. There is no need to introduce a "wobble"
in the Earth's axis, induced by the action of 9 other celestial bodies -- a theory
which is just a relic from a time when the motion of the Solar System was not
yet conceived.
It would be sagacious not to place Sirius at the center of the Solar
System, for in a fractal system there is no true center. The fractal nature of
the Universe engenders its self-arrangement, or more apropos, the Universe is a
holofractal graphic system [15]. Therefore there are many nested orbital
interactions, going out as far as the local cluster of galaxies, which
themselves have a focal point.
This is nothing new. Previous civilizations understood celestial
mechanics at an advanced level, and the mathematical precision of their
astronomical observations is a testament to this [16]. The reason why the
Egyptians and many other civilizations of that era used Sirius as their marker
for the passage of time is because they picked the most stable object as their
reference point.
We choose the Sun as our reference point, and this is obviously highly
inaccurate. Every 4 years a day has to be added to keep accurate time. But even
Sirius was not accurate enough for the "Keeper's of Time", the
Mayans. With their remarkably advanced astronomy they quickly detected the
inaccuracies in using Sirius as a marker for the passage of time, and switched
to an even more accurate cycle involving the Pleiades.
There is however an even more stable reference point than the Pleiades
and that is the Galactic center, which from the perspective of our galaxy is
the ultimate center of rotation.
And indeed the Mayan's chose the Galactic Center as a reference point
to mark the passage of time, which is evident as the Mayan Long Count ends with
the galactic alignment of the Solar System on December 21st 2012. Therefore,
the idea that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that the Sun orbits Sirius, or that
Sirius orbits Alcyone and that Alcyone orbits the Galactic Nucleus, is not
revolutionary -- it's just a rediscovery of lost knowledge.
Notes:
[1] Sun Kwok. Delivery of Complex Organic Compounds from
Planetary Nebulae to the Solar System. International Journal of Astrobiology
(2009), 8: 161-167
[2] Joseph A. Nuth, Natasha M. Johnson, and Steven Manning.
A self-perpetuating catalyst for the production of complex organic molecules in
protostellar nebulae. Organic Matter in Space. Proceedings IAU Symposium No.
251, 2008.
[3] "Astrobiology Magazine", "Cosmic
Evolution" Section, "Getting WISE about Nemesis" 03/11/10,
Author: Leslie Mullen, Article about Nemesis theory, also describing supporting
Sedna Theory and how the WISE Sky Survey Mission may prove or disprove both
theories.
a. Robert Roy Britt, Nemesis: Does the Sun Have a
'Companion'?, Space.com, 3 April 2001.
b. R. Foot, Z. K. Silagadze, Do mirror planets exist in our
solar system? Acta Physica Polononica B32 (2001) pp. 2271–2278.
c. Richard A. Muller, Measurement of the lunar impact record
for the past 3.5 billion years, and implications for the Nemesis theory,
Geological Society of America Special Paper 356, pp 659–665 (2002).
d. Z.K. Silagadze, TeV scale gravity, mirror universe, and
... dinosaurs, Acta Physica Polonica B32 (2001) 99-128. (Provides a very
entertaining and readable review of the Nemesis extinction hypothesis,
including dozens of references to scientific articles on the topic.)
e. Lynn Yarris. "Does a Companion Star to the Sun Cause
Earth's Periodic Mass Extinctions?" Science Beat. Spring 1987
[4] SpaceDaily. Evidence Mounts For Companion Star To Our
Sun. Apr 25, 2006.
[5] Walter Crutenberg. Binary Research Institute.
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/.
[6] Henry, Todd J. (2006-07-01). "The One Hundred
Nearest Star Systems". RECONS. Retrieved 2006-08-04.
[7] Uwe Homann. Time Equivalence of the Tropical Year and
the Sidereal Year. Journal of Theoretics.
[8] Frances A. Yates. Giordano Bruno, and the Hermetic
Tradition. pp 208.
[9] George Kavassilas. Harmonic Equation of Ascension.
[10] Carl Johan Calleman. The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation
of Consciousness.
[11] Walter Cruttenden. Predicting Changes in Earth
Orientation -Dynamic Versus Static Solar System Model. Binary Research
Institute.
[12] Drunvalo Melchizedek. The Ancient Secret of the Flower
of Life, Volume I.
[13] Jed Buchwal, Egyptian Stars under Paris
[14] Michael S. Heise. The Myth of a Sumerian 12Th Planet:
“Nibiru†According to the Cuneiform Sources.
[15] Nassim Haramein. The Resonance Project.
[16]Harlestion. Mayan Treasure, Space and Time Unified at Teotihuacan
No comments:
Post a Comment