Unseen companion to Sol

I read in ScienceDaily the other day that the orbit of one of the
newly discovered minor planets indicates that the sun is part of a
binary system. The problem I see with this is that we would have seen
it by now. It can't be Alpha Centauri, it's too far away. There are no
closer stars that could be companions to Sol. If it was a brown dwarf,
it would be big enough that we would have seen it by now, wouldn't we?

So here's my idea, it's a black hole. One that has "eaten" all the
matter around it and is silent. It's not emitting anything because
it's not taking anything in. The only way to "see" it would be to
watch the entire sky until a star unexpectedly is "magnified" by the
gravitational lensing when it passed by. Since neutron stars are less
than 10 miles across, how big is the event horizon on a black hole? A
mile? Half that?

I have gotten the impression that a black hole "sucks" things into it.
On tv they show them taking in entire solar systems and such. But it
seems to me that the black hole wouldn't have any more gravity than
the star that made it had to begin with. It would just be that the
star is compacted into a tiny spot. While I figure that would disrupt
the orbits of any planets around the star and cause them to either go
off into space or into the black hole. But after that has occured, it
should go dead. Shouldn't it?

Well, is it a theory?

"Ookie Wonderslug" wrote in message
...
I read in ScienceDaily the other day that the orbit of one of the
newly discovered minor planets indicates that the sun is part of a
binary system. The problem I see with this is that we would have seen
it by now. It can't be Alpha Centauri, it's too far away. There are no
closer stars that could be companions to Sol. If it was a brown dwarf,
it would be big enough that we would have seen it by now, wouldn't we?

So here's my idea, it's a black hole. One that has "eaten" all the
matter around it and is silent. It's not emitting anything because
it's not taking anything in. The only way to "see" it would be to
watch the entire sky until a star unexpectedly is "magnified" by the
gravitational lensing when it passed by. Since neutron stars are less
than 10 miles across, how big is the event horizon on a black hole? A
mile? Half that?

Since the Sol system is in orbit in the Milky Way galaxy,
and since there's a fair amount of jostling of stars
and dust clouds and such, it's very unlikely that such a
black hole would have a matter-free path to follow.

Sol orbits the galactic nucleus in something on the order
of once every 250 million years. The solar system's been
around for on the order of 5 billion, so we've gone round
about 20 times -- not enough, I would think, to clear a
dust-free lane even if the orbit was a repeating one.

The black hole Schwarzchild Radius (2GM/c^2) depends upon
the mass of the progenitor star. It would have to have
been a pretty big star to have gone through its entire life
cycle, right through to supernova and black hole collapse,
long enough ago to leave an undetectable remnant shell and
sweep clean the entire orbit.


I have gotten the impression that a black hole "sucks" things into it.
On tv they show them taking in entire solar systems and such. But it
seems to me that the black hole wouldn't have any more gravity than
the star that made it had to begin with. It would just be that the
star is compacted into a tiny spot. While I figure that would disrupt
the orbits of any planets around the star and cause them to either go
off into space or into the black hole. But after that has occured, it
should go dead. Shouldn't it?

The gravitational field of a black hole is
indistinguishable from that of an ordinary star of the same
mass. No sucking, no disrupting. What the local planets
have to survive though is the red giant and supernova
stages that lead to the black hole forming. Not a
particularly peaceful process.


Well, is it a theory?

Needs work, keep at it. :-)

Jupiter was NEVER a star, frootbat! Not even close!

Saul Levy


On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:31:13 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

Well Ookie if you call sci fi theory based, yes, but not reality
based. There are no black holes because not a real world possibility,
while binary star systems on the other hand, yes, due to being
physically observed based. Jupiter would be the closest candidate as an
possible main sequence extinguished star yet still producing more energy
then received. And the nightbat formidable and profound original
solution to the paradox singularity enigma presented via the " Black
Comet " beats all hands down.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Starlord wrote:
First of all, there are many binary stars who have the 2nd (or even 3rd)
member of the group at a distance far greater than Jupiter and the Sun. As
it is, Jupiter is two small to form a true star, it's even to small for a
brown dwarft. But kooks like those others paid no heed to what sci-fact
tells us and just go on ratlltling their empty heads around on the
newsgroups.

Our Sun, a Main Seq. G Class star is a SINGLE star with no other stellar
objects in orbit with or around it, all it has are planetary and smaller
objects.


--
The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond



"Evidence Mounts For Sun's Companion Star"

"The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital
characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, "Sedna",
demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star
system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally
bound orbiting a common center of mass. Once thought to be highly
unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way
galaxy."

"Because eccentricity would likely fade with time, it is logical to
assume Sedna is telling us something about current, albeit unexpected
solar system forces, most probably a companion star".

"But with Dr. Brown's recent discoveries of Sedna and Xena, (now
confirmed to be larger than Pluto), and timing observations like
Cruttenden's, the search for a companion star may be gaining momentum."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424180559.htm

Double-A

What you need, frootie, is an ENEMA!

Saul Levy


On Sat, 06 May 2006 02:20:58 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

nightbat wrote

Top posting corrected

Colonel Jake TM wrote:


"Saul Levy" wrote in message

On Thu, 04 May 2006 21:31:13 -0500, nightbat
wrote:

Well Ookie if you call sci fi theory based, yes, but not reality
based. There are no black holes because not a real world possibility,
while binary star systems on the other hand, yes, due to being
physically observed based. Jupiter would be the closest candidate as an
possible main sequence extinguished star yet still producing more energy
then received. And the nightbat formidable and profound original
solution to the paradox singularity enigma presented via the " Black
Comet " beats all hands down.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Saul
news
Jupiter was NEVER a star, frootbat! Not even close!

Saul Levy

Colonel Jake
That was "TOTALLY," bad form?,
Sual Levy, if you just understood how to read english???,...., you'd
understand that "night bat," was refering to "the distance, binary stars
would have to be to each other," in other words???,...., if Sol was binary?,
then its companion "Star" would have to be the approximate distance that
"Jupiter" is from the Sun!!!...

But then again?,
How english could mean so many different things...

--
HaHaHa

VK all the way

Colonel Jake (TM), of AUK Goofy Azzed Babboon
http://www.netcabal.com/auk/kookle.p...h=colonel+jake
http://www.netcabal.com/auk
©2006 Colonel Jake Enterprises, L.L.C. Colonel Jake is a registered
trademark of Colonel Jake Enterprises, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

And then some...

"Mutha-****ass-Newsgroup-Blurper!!!"

nightbat

See Saul even the auk kooks need to correct you when you're too
much sun exposed. Not to worry just get some baby sun screen and you'll
be ok.

ponder on,
the nightbat

Sure, this could be ancient history, DA. The search for such a
companion (even if it left a long time ago) is a waste of time as no
infrared observations have found such an object. The entire sky has
been searched already.

Saul Levy


On 5 May 2006 23:42:01 -0700, "Double-A" wrote:

"Evidence Mounts For Sun's Companion Star"

"The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital
characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, "Sedna",
demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star
system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally
bound orbiting a common center of mass. Once thought to be highly
unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way
galaxy."

"Because eccentricity would likely fade with time, it is logical to
assume Sedna is telling us something about current, albeit unexpected
solar system forces, most probably a companion star".

"But with Dr. Brown's recent discoveries of Sedna and Xena, (now
confirmed to be larger than Pluto), and timing observations like
Cruttenden's, the search for a companion star may be gaining momentum."


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424180559.htm

Double-A

Bob Officer wrote:
On 5 May 2006 23:42:01 -0700, in alt.astronomy, "Double-A"
wrote:



"Evidence Mounts For Sun's Companion Star"

"The Binary Research Institute (BRI)

Is a front/shill site, to sell books and materials by the author.
19.95 list price for a book which basically cites other authors
trying to round up myths and half truths.

Here is one fact the author and the supporters of a binaries system
never mention. If the binary companion was a black hole, the jets of
material and the surrounding disks of infalling material would be
very noticeable in just about any telescopes of binoculars, if not
the
second brightest object in the sky...

snip


"But with Dr. Brown's recent discoveries of Sedna and Xena, (now
confirmed to be larger than Pluto), and timing observations like
Cruttenden's, the search for a companion star may be gaining momentum."

The Binary Research Institute
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
and
'Lost Star' web site
http://www.loststarbook.com/index.shtml
Use circular referencing, since they appear to be owned and
maintained by the same group of people, it appear there is a matter
of an attempted deception on their part.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424180559.htm

If you look, This is a news Release by BRI.
I wonder if a check with Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley and
Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana agreed to allow
their "suggestion", or worked in connection/conjunction/colaberation
with BRI? IS this also a false endorsement? another attempt at
deception?


The following contains both true information and false information.
If make no separation between Brown's findings, and Cruttenden's
supposition. It tries to imply that Cruttenden and Brown worked
together.

"The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first
detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what
could be indirect physical evidence of a solar companion. "

However I doubt Brown made that statement that finding Sedna implies
anything of the sort...

"Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves
in a highly unusual elliptical orbit,"

This could be an accurate statement, only if Cruttenden reduced the
data in findings...

" Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with
previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star."

and hear you see who actually this article is about. Cruttenden's
work and his findings... But then he is really wrong.

sigh

Double-A you failed to observe Rule Six and Rule Five.

Rule Five: Read and understand who is writing, and why?
Rule Six: Not every web site and every news release is accurate or
valid.
Rule Seven: Verify people claiming or implying endorsements actually
have the right to claim those endorsements.

--
Ak'toh'di


Did I endorse this article?

No, only quoted from it and didn't even comment on it.

I just threw it out for discussion and critiquing, which I see you've
done a fine job of doing.

I try not to quote from downright crankish sources, but I didn't think
Science Daily was.

Double-A

Bob Officer wrote:
On 8 May 2006 17:17:58 -0700, in alt.astronomy, "Double-A"
wrote:


Bob Officer wrote:
On 5 May 2006 23:42:01 -0700, in alt.astronomy, "Double-A"
wrote:


"Evidence Mounts For Sun's Companion Star"

"The Binary Research Institute (BRI)

Is a front/shill site, to sell books and materials by the author.
19.95 list price for a book which basically cites other authors
trying to round up myths and half truths.

Here is one fact the author and the supporters of a binaries system
never mention. If the binary companion was a black hole, the jets of
material and the surrounding disks of infalling material would be
very noticeable in just about any telescopes of binoculars, if not
the
second brightest object in the sky...

snip


"But with Dr. Brown's recent discoveries of Sedna and Xena, (now
confirmed to be larger than Pluto), and timing observations like
Cruttenden's, the search for a companion star may be gaining momentum."

The Binary Research Institute
http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
and
'Lost Star' web site
http://www.loststarbook.com/index.shtml
Use circular referencing, since they appear to be owned and
maintained by the same group of people, it appear there is a matter
of an attempted deception on their part.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0424180559.htm

If you look, This is a news Release by BRI.
I wonder if a check with Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley and
Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana agreed to allow
their "suggestion", or worked in connection/conjunction/colaberation
with BRI? IS this also a false endorsement? another attempt at
deception?


The following contains both true information and false information.
If make no separation between Brown's findings, and Cruttenden's
supposition. It tries to imply that Cruttenden and Brown worked
together.

"The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first
detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what
could be indirect physical evidence of a solar companion. "

However I doubt Brown made that statement that finding Sedna implies
anything of the sort...

"Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves
in a highly unusual elliptical orbit,"

This could be an accurate statement, only if Cruttenden reduced the
data in findings...

" Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with
previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star."

and hear you see who actually this article is about. Cruttenden's
work and his findings... But then he is really wrong.

sigh

Double-A you failed to observe Rule Six and Rule Five.

Rule Five: Read and understand who is writing, and why?
Rule Six: Not every web site and every news release is accurate or
valid.
Rule Seven: Verify people claiming or implying endorsements actually
have the right to claim those endorsements.

--
Ak'toh'di


Did I endorse this article?

No, only quoted from it and didn't even comment on it.

I just threw it out for discussion and critiquing, which I see you've
done a fine job of doing.

I try not to quote from downright crankish sources, but I didn't think
Science Daily was.

I would consider any release by BRI or any thing from Geoff
questionable.

And see rule Six and Seven, it applies to news releases. Science
Daily is suspect for not checking the releases for accuracy.

One must be a skeptic. that man that claims a degree often doesn't
have it. the published report has often been rejected after peer
review. and remember the best of sites on the net can be duped. a
true skeptic thinks before he even forwards articles or releases.

If there was a black hole orbiting our sun, it would be the second
brightest x-ray object in out sky, the jets from of in-falling matter
being ejected from the disc would make a comet pale in comparison,
and it would be so powerful it would over power micro wave radios.

Good grief, stop and think for just one second. No wonder you are one
of the butts of AUK's jokes.

Keep an open mine, but always, Practice Skeptical Thinking.



--
Ak'toh'di


I was not the one who suggested that it was a black hole orbiting our
Sun.

AUK snecked. (Nice try!)

Double-A

On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:02:38 -0700, Bob Officer
wrote:


Here is one fact the author and the supporters of a binaries system
never mention. If the binary companion was a black hole, the jets of
material and the surrounding disks of infalling material would be
very noticeable in just about any telescopes of binoculars, if not
the
second brightest object in the sky...

snip




If there was a black hole orbiting our sun, it would be the second
brightest x-ray object in out sky, the jets from of in-falling matter
being ejected from the disc would make a comet pale in comparison,
and it would be so powerful it would over power micro wave radios.

Good grief, stop and think for just one second. No wonder you are one
of the butts of AUK's jokes.

Keep an open mine, but always, Practice Skeptical Thinking.



I figured that. That is why I asked if there could be a "dead" one in
orbit with the sun. If there is nothing falling into it, there would
be no jets, nothing. Just a gravity well outside of the solar system
changing orbits and nothing else. Once all the matter around the
black hole is "eaten" there would be nothing for it turn into x-rays.

I'm not an astronomer. I know there is nothing around our sun that is
big enough to be called a companion star that is visible. The only
thing that I know of that would be invisible and would have the effect
of a star is a dead black hole. If there is no chance of one being
anywhere near the sun (which appears to be the fact) then there is no
companion to the sun and this study is bull. That's all I wanted to
know.

On Tue, 09 May 2006 04:33:27 GMT, Ookie Wonderslug
opined:

On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:02:38 -0700, Bob Officer
wrote:


Here is one fact the author and the supporters of a binaries system
never mention. If the binary companion was a black hole, the jets of
material and the surrounding disks of infalling material would be
very noticeable in just about any telescopes of binoculars, if not
the
second brightest object in the sky...

snip




If there was a black hole orbiting our sun, it would be the second
brightest x-ray object in out sky, the jets from of in-falling matter
being ejected from the disc would make a comet pale in comparison,
and it would be so powerful it would over power micro wave radios.

Good grief, stop and think for just one second. No wonder you are one
of the butts of AUK's jokes.

Keep an open mine, but always, Practice Skeptical Thinking.



I figured that. That is why I asked if there could be a "dead" one in
orbit with the sun. If there is nothing falling into it, there would
be no jets, nothing. Just a gravity well outside of the solar system
changing orbits and nothing else. Once all the matter around the
black hole is "eaten" there would be nothing for it turn into x-rays.

I'm not an astronomer. I know there is nothing around our sun that is
big enough to be called a companion star that is visible. The only
thing that I know of that would be invisible and would have the effect
of a star is a dead black hole. If there is no chance of one being
anywhere near the sun (which appears to be the fact) then there is no
companion to the sun and this study is bull. That's all I wanted to
know.

There's no such thing as a "dead black hole", you drooling moron. If
it has the mass, it has the gravity. If it has the gravity, it has
random crap (if only stray hydrogen atoms) falling into it. If it has
stuff falling into it, it's emitting x-rays.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------