Planet X could be Sun's Binary 'Red Dwarf' Twin? Sleuths?

The Dark Star Theory

On 7th October 1999 a small news item appeared in the inside pages of
various newspapers and Internet news servers that did little more than
raise a few eyebrows. An extract from MSN News stated:
"Two teams of researchers have proposed the existence of an unseen
planet or a failed star circling the Sun at a distance of more than 2
trillion miles, far beyond the orbits of the nine known planets. The
theory, which seeks to explain patterns in comets’ paths, has been put
forward in research accepted for publication in two separate journals."

I believe this is the precursor to something quite extraordinary, the
implications of which are unknown to the many astronomers hoping to be
the first to discover this planet or failed star. The basis for my
belief lies far back in history, from myths and data recorded by our
very earliest civilisations. This proposed synthesis of myth and modern
science lead us in a remarkable direction.


Mo
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds1.htm

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...
The Dark Star Theory

On 7th October 1999 a small news item appeared in the inside pages of
various newspapers and Internet news servers that did little more than
raise a few eyebrows. An extract from MSN News stated:
"Two teams of researchers have proposed the existence of an unseen planet
or a failed star circling the Sun at a distance of more than 2 trillion
miles, far beyond the orbits of the nine known planets. The theory, which
seeks to explain patterns in comets’ paths, has been put forward in
research accepted for publication in two separate journals."

I believe this is the precursor to something quite extraordinary, the
implications of which are unknown to the many astronomers hoping to be the
first to discover this planet or failed star. The basis for my belief
lies far back in history, from myths and data recorded by our very
earliest civilisations. This proposed synthesis of myth and modern
science lead us in a remarkable direction.


Mo
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds1.htm


1: it won't be a "Red Dwarf", because there is no evidence whatsoever that
there is one, instruments are no sensitive to image it, and it's just not
there.

2: It won't be a "Brown Dwarf" either for the following reasons:


"We are familiar with stars, which are luminous balls of gas that fuse
elements in their core. Stars are massive enough that the pressure and
temperature in their cores are enough to maintain fusion. Planets are
smaller, cooler objects which are, in general, not self-luminous. Planets
are bright because they reflect sunlight. Their mass is too small to have
fusion in the core.
A brown dwarf is an object that is somewhere in the netherworld between
stars and planets. By definition, a brown dwarf is an object that has a mass
less than is needed to sustain fusion, and at the lower mass end they blend
into planets."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ml#browndwarfs read
the entire text.

3: There is no "Planet X", no evidence to even suggest that such an object
exists.



End of story. Move along.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...

The Dark Star Theory

On 7th October 1999 a small news item appeared in the inside pages of
various newspapers and Internet news servers that did little more than
raise a few eyebrows. An extract from MSN News stated:
"Two teams of researchers have proposed the existence of an unseen planet
or a failed star circling the Sun at a distance of more than 2 trillion
miles, far beyond the orbits of the nine known planets. The theory, which
seeks to explain patterns in comets’ paths, has been put forward in
research accepted for publication in two separate journals."

I believe this is the precursor to something quite extraordinary, the
implications of which are unknown to the many astronomers hoping to be the
first to discover this planet or failed star. The basis for my belief
lies far back in history, from myths and data recorded by our very
earliest civilisations. This proposed synthesis of myth and modern
science lead us in a remarkable direction.


Mo
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds1.htm



1: it won't be a "Red Dwarf", because there is no evidence whatsoever that
there is one, instruments are no sensitive to image it, and it's just not
there.

2: It won't be a "Brown Dwarf" either for the following reasons:


"We are familiar with stars, which are luminous balls of gas that fuse
elements in their core. Stars are massive enough that the pressure and
temperature in their cores are enough to maintain fusion. Planets are
smaller, cooler objects which are, in general, not self-luminous. Planets
are bright because they reflect sunlight. Their mass is too small to have
fusion in the core.
A brown dwarf is an object that is somewhere in the netherworld between
stars and planets. By definition, a brown dwarf is an object that has a mass
less than is needed to sustain fusion, and at the lower mass end they blend
into planets."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ml#browndwarfs read
the entire text.

From my reading, it looks like brown dwarfs mass from about 10
Jupiter masses to about 75 Jupiter masses. IMHO, that doesn't
begin to square with the projected mass of any Planet X theory;
at least any that is based on the 'work' of Sitchen and such-like.

And Nancy's fantasy of a 20 *Earth*-mass brown dwarf PX is just
silly. Or did everyone already get the memo?


3: There is no "Planet X", no evidence to even suggest that such an object
exists.



End of story. Move along.

--
Tom McDonald

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.cable.rogers.com...

The Dark Star Theory

On 7th October 1999 a small news item appeared in the inside pages of
various newspapers and Internet news servers that did little more than
raise a few eyebrows. An extract from MSN News stated:
"Two teams of researchers have proposed the existence of an unseen planet
or a failed star circling the Sun at a distance of more than 2 trillion
miles, far beyond the orbits of the nine known planets. The theory,
which seeks to explain patterns in comets’ paths, has been put forward in
research accepted for publication in two separate journals."

I believe this is the precursor to something quite extraordinary, the
implications of which are unknown to the many astronomers hoping to be
the first to discover this planet or failed star. The basis for my
belief lies far back in history, from myths and data recorded by our very
earliest civilisations. This proposed synthesis of myth and modern
science lead us in a remarkable direction.


Mo
http://www.darkstar1.co.uk/ds1.htm



1: it won't be a "Red Dwarf", because there is no evidence whatsoever
that there is one, instruments are no sensitive to image it, and it's
just not there.

2: It won't be a "Brown Dwarf" either for the following reasons:


"We are familiar with stars, which are luminous balls of gas that fuse
elements in their core. Stars are massive enough that the pressure and
temperature in their cores are enough to maintain fusion. Planets are
smaller, cooler objects which are, in general, not self-luminous. Planets
are bright because they reflect sunlight. Their mass is too small to have
fusion in the core.
A brown dwarf is an object that is somewhere in the netherworld between
stars and planets. By definition, a brown dwarf is an object that has a
mass less than is needed to sustain fusion, and at the lower mass end
they blend into planets."

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc...ml#browndwarfs
read the entire text.

From my reading, it looks like brown dwarfs mass from about 10 Jupiter
masses to about 75 Jupiter masses. IMHO, that doesn't begin to square
with the projected mass of any Planet X theory; at least any that is based
on the 'work' of Sitchen and such-like.

Exactly, and it goes treble for "Red Dwarfs"



And Nancy's fantasy of a 20 *Earth*-mass brown dwarf PX is just silly. Or
did everyone already get the memo?





3: There is no "Planet X", no evidence to even suggest that such an
object exists.



End of story. Move along.

--
Tom McDonald

Wally Anglesea wrote:

3: There is no "Planet X", no evidence to even suggest that such an object
exists.



End of story. Move along. (Yes Wally, move along - back to your pitiful existence)

Researchers at BRI have noticed a number of problems related to the
current theory of precession. While VLBI, laser ranging and other
related technologies do a good job at determining the earth’s
orientation, the sun’s movement through space has not been coordinated
with these findings resulting in unintentional bias of precession
inputs. In examining the phenomenon of precession of the equinox (which
was the original impetus for the development of lunisolar precession
theory) we have found that a binary orbit motion of our sun and solar
system is a simpler way to reproduce the same observable without any of
the problems associated with current precession theory. Indeed,
elliptical orbit equations have been found to be a better predictor of
precession rates than Newcomb's formula. Moreover, a binary orbit motion
of our sun provides a single elegant solution to a number of current
solar system formation theory enigmas including angular momentum and
sheer edge observations. For this reason, BRI has concluded our sun is
most likely part of a long cycle binary system.

A binary system is two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common
center of mass. The stars can be of the same or differing sizes and
orbits can be as short as a few days or as long as thousands of years.
The short ones are easy to detect, the long ones difficult, some
probably impossible to detect because of the very long observation
period required.

Mo
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.o...n/binary.shtml

--
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...tur.313...36W&
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...as.rept...53H&
---

Washington Post
Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered, a front page story
31-Dec-1983

A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and
possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system
has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an
orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite.
So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a
planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot
enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still
in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in
dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through. "All
I can tell you is that we don't know what it is," Dr. Gerry
Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist for California's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and director of the Palomar Observatory for the
California Institute of Technology said in an interview.

The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so
cold it casts no light and has never been seen by optical telescopes
on Earth or in space, is that it is a giant gaseous planet, as large
as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 billion miles. While that may
seem like a great distance in earthbound terms, it is a stone's
throw in cosmological terms, so close in fact that it would be the
nearest heavenly body to Earth beyond the outermost planet
Pluto. "If it is really that close, it would be a part of our solar
system," said Dr. James Houck of Cornell University's Center for
Radio Physics and Space Research and a member of the IRAS
science team. "If it is that close, I don't know how the world's
planetary scientists would even begin to classify it."

The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it
scanned the northern sky from last January to November, when
the satellite ran out of the supercold helium that allowed its
telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second
observation took place six months after the first and suggested the
mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky near the
western edge of the constellation Orion in that time. "This
suggests it's not a comet because a comet would not be as large as
the one we've observed and a comet would probably have moved,"
Houck said. "A planet may have moved if it were as close as 50
billion miles but it could still be a more distant planet and not have
moved in six months time.

Whatever it is, Houck said, the mystery body is so cold its
temperature is no more than 40 degrees above "absolute" zero,
which is 459 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. The telescope aboard
IRAS is cooled so low and is so sensitive it can "see" objects in the
heavens that are only 20 degrees above absolute zero. When IRAS
scientists first saw the mystery body and calculated that it could
be as close as 50 billion miles, there was some speculation that it
might be moving toward Earth. "It's not incoming mail," Cal Tech's
Neugebauer said. "I want to douse that idea with as much cold
water as I can."
--

Newsweek
Does the Sun Have a Dark Companion?
28-Jun-1982

....When scientists noticed that Uranus wasn't following its
predicted orbit for example, they didn't question their theories.
Instead they blamed the anomalies on an as yet unseen planet
and, sure enough, Neptune was discovered in 1846. Now
astronomers are using the same strategy to explain quirks in the
orbits of Uranus and Neptune. According to John Anderson of the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., this odd behavior
suggests that the sun has an unseen companion, a dark star
gravitationally bound to it but billions of miles away. Other
scientists suggest that the most likely cause of the orbital snags is
a tenth planet 4 to 7 billion miles beyond Neptune. A companion
star would tug the outer planets, not just Uranus and Neptune,
says Thomas Van Flandern of the U.S Naval Observatory. And
where he admits a tenth planet is possible, but argues that it
would have to be so big - a least the size of Uranus - that it should
have been discovered by now. To resolve the question, NASA is
staying tuned to Pioneer 10 and 11, the planetary probes that are
flying through the dim reaches of the solar system on opposite
sides of the sun.

Hey Wally,

MS is referencing a group dedicated to proving that the Sun is
part of a binary system. It must be scientific because it has
entrepreneurs, one astronomer and an astrologer as advisers!

And lookee here; he's trotting out the 1982-1983 news reports
about PX! Pity he didn't find the 1984 report that showed what
the IRAS _really_ found.

Cutting edge, that man. Nancy would be so proud.

--
Tom McDonald


Mad Scientist wrote:



Wally Anglesea wrote:

3: There is no "Planet X", no evidence to even suggest that such an
object exists.



End of story. Move along. (Yes Wally, move along - back to your
pitiful existence)


Researchers at BRI have noticed a number of problems related to the
current theory of precession. While VLBI, laser ranging and other
related technologies do a good job at determining the earth’s
orientation, the sun’s movement through space has not been coordinated
with these findings resulting in unintentional bias of precession
inputs. In examining the phenomenon of precession of the equinox (which
was the original impetus for the development of lunisolar precession
theory) we have found that a binary orbit motion of our sun and solar
system is a simpler way to reproduce the same observable without any of
the problems associated with current precession theory. Indeed,
elliptical orbit equations have been found to be a better predictor of
precession rates than Newcomb's formula. Moreover, a binary orbit motion
of our sun provides a single elegant solution to a number of current
solar system formation theory enigmas including angular momentum and
sheer edge observations. For this reason, BRI has concluded our sun is
most likely part of a long cycle binary system.

A binary system is two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common
center of mass. The stars can be of the same or differing sizes and
orbits can be as short as a few days or as long as thousands of years.
The short ones are easy to detect, the long ones difficult, some
probably impossible to detect because of the very long observation
period required.

Mo
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.o...n/binary.shtml

--
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...tur.313...36W&

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...as.rept...53H&

---

Washington Post
Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered, a front page story
31-Dec-1983

A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and
possibly so close to Earth that it would be part of this solar system
has been found in the direction of the constellation Orion by an
orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite.
So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a
planet, a giant comet, a nearby "protostar" that never got hot
enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that it is still
in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in
dust that none of the light cast by its stars ever gets through. "All
I can tell you is that we don't know what it is," Dr. Gerry
Neugebauer, IRAS chief scientist for California's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and director of the Palomar Observatory for the
California Institute of Technology said in an interview.

The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so
cold it casts no light and has never been seen by optical telescopes
on Earth or in space, is that it is a giant gaseous planet, as large
as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 billion miles. While that may
seem like a great distance in earthbound terms, it is a stone's
throw in cosmological terms, so close in fact that it would be the
nearest heavenly body to Earth beyond the outermost planet
Pluto. "If it is really that close, it would be a part of our solar
system," said Dr. James Houck of Cornell University's Center for
Radio Physics and Space Research and a member of the IRAS
science team. "If it is that close, I don't know how the world's
planetary scientists would even begin to classifyit.

The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it
scanned the northern sky from last January to November, when
the satellite ran out of the supercold helium that allowed its
telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second
observation took place six months after the first and suggested the
mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky near the
western edge of the constellation Orion in that time. "This
suggests it's not a comet because a comet would not be as large as
the one we've observed and a comet would probably have moved,"
Houck said. "A planet may have moved if it were as close as 50
billion miles but it could still be a more distant planet and not have
moved in six months time.

Whatever it is, Houck said, the mystery body is so cold its
temperature is no more than 40 degrees above "absolute" zero,
which is 459 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. The telescope aboard
IRAS is cooled so low and is so sensitive it can "see" objects in the
heavens that are only 20 degrees above absolute zero. When IRAS
scientists first saw the mystery body and calculated that it could
be as close as 50 billion miles, there was some speculation that it
might be moving toward Earth. "It's not incoming mail," Cal Tech's
Neugebauer said. "I want to douse that idea with as much cold
water as I can."
--

Newsweek
Does the Sun Have a Dark Companion?
28-Jun-1982

...When scientists noticed that Uranus wasn't following its
predicted orbit for example, they didn't question their theories.
Instead they blamed the anomalies on an as yet unseen planet
and, sure enough, Neptune was discovered in 1846. Now
astronomers are using the same strategy to explain quirks in the
orbits of Uranus and Neptune. According to John Anderson of the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., this odd behavior
suggests that the sun has an unseen companion, a dark star
gravitationally bound to it but billions of miles away. Other
scientists suggest that the most likely cause of the orbital snags is
a tenth planet 4 to 7 billion miles beyond Neptune. A companion
star would tug the outer planets, not just Uranus and Neptune,
says Thomas Van Flandern of the U.S Naval Observatory. And
where he admits a tenth planet is possible, but argues that it
would have to be so big - a least the size of Uranus - that it should
have been discovered by now. To resolve the question, NASA is
staying tuned to Pioneer 10 and 11, the planetary probes that are
flying through the dim reaches of the solar system on opposite
sides of the sun.

Sociopath Tom and his friend Wally have lots in common (besides being
unable to read) they like to harass people online with smear campaigns
and insult tactics - too bad the astronomy world is embarassed by them.

Tom McDonald wrote still smarting from saying that 'slaves hauled up 200
ton blocks of stone and 2000 ton blocks of stone to the top of mountains
in the Andes':

Hey Wally,

MS is referencing a group dedicated to proving that the Sun is part
of a binary system. It must be scientific because it has entrepreneurs,
one astronomer and an astrologer as advisers!

And lookee here; he's trotting out the 1982-1983 news reports about
PX! Pity he didn't find the 1984 report that showed what the IRAS
_really_ found.

Cutting edge, that man. Nancy would be so proud.

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...
Hey Wally,

MS is referencing a group dedicated to proving that the Sun is part of a
binary system. It must be scientific because it has entrepreneurs, one
astronomer and an astrologer as advisers!

Yep. I'm aware of that group of nutters. I always laugh when nutjob groups
think that adding the word "research" or "truth" into their title lemds them
any semblance of credibility.



And lookee here; he's trotting out the 1982-1983 news reports about PX!
Pity he didn't find the 1984 report that showed what the IRAS _really_
found.

Yep, and that's where the term "Planet X" was first mentioned, IIRC.



MS isn't interested in facts. He want's his fantasies fortified.
Unfortunately for him, his only sources are nutjobs.





Cutting edge, that man. Nancy would be so proud.

Wait till he starts showing ups the pictures in Nancy's site.

Now who is the sociopath...

BP

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
ogers.com...
Sociopath Tom and his friend Wally have lots in common (besides being
unable to read) they like to harass people online with smear campaigns
and insult tactics - too bad the astronomy world is embarassed by them.

Tom McDonald wrote still smarting from saying that 'slaves hauled up 200
ton blocks of stone and 2000 ton blocks of stone to the top of mountains
in the Andes':

Hey Wally,

MS is referencing a group dedicated to proving that the Sun is part
of a binary system. It must be scientific because it has entrepreneurs,
one astronomer and an astrologer as advisers!

And lookee here; he's trotting out the 1982-1983 news reports about
PX! Pity he didn't find the 1984 report that showed what the IRAS
_really_ found.

Cutting edge, that man. Nancy would be so proud.

Another Usenet sociopath proves why he should be ignored.

Wally Anglesea wrote:

"Tom McDonald" wrote in message
...

Hey Wally,

MS is referencing a group dedicated to proving that the Sun is part of a
binary system. It must be scientific because it has entrepreneurs, one
astronomer and an astrologer as advisers!


Yep. I'm aware of that group of nutters. I always laugh when nutjob groups
think that adding the word "research" or "truth" into their title lemds them
any semblance of credibility.




And lookee here; he's trotting out the 1982-1983 news reports about PX!
Pity he didn't find the 1984 report that showed what the IRAS _really_
found.


Yep, and that's where the term "Planet X" was first mentioned, IIRC.



MS isn't interested in facts. He want's his fantasies fortified.
Unfortunately for him, his only sources are nutjobs.





Cutting edge, that man. Nancy would be so proud.


Wait till he starts showing ups the pictures in Nancy's site.