New look at an old idea

[Anthrage]

First visit and post to these boards. Like what I see so far, very nice.

While doing some research recently I came across this paper (http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n01/a/NFS0201a.shtml). I am still going over the material and checking some of the data, but I thought I'd see if anyone here was familiar with this particular work/take on an old theory, and get the 'Bad Astronomy' opinion.

I think one of the primary causes for most bad astronomy is the very real fact that there are some anomalies in our current set of data as pertains to many areas of the universe and it's phenomena, and some people try a little hard to fill in the blanks, making unfounded leaps to a conclusion; often unfounded or premature. People see something that they don't quite understand, or that isn't entirely defined, and they do their best to create something that does.

Sometimes I wonder how many ideas and theories are not only wrongly out forth, but wrongly dismissed. Fortunately, sites like these and forums like these with the minds behind them provide for some hope that the wheat and the chaff will be correctly identified. :)

[FP]

Welcome, Anthrage! (I finally got to be the first to welcome someone!)

I have learned more in the last 1.5 years lurking and occasionally posting than 4 years of college! (well, about astronomy and physics anyway.)

I'll leave the discussion of your link to those who actually know what they are talking about :-?

[kilopi]

While doing some research recently I came across this paper (http://www.newfrontiersinscience.com/Members/v02n01/a/NFS0201a.shtml). I am still going over the material and checking some of the data, but I thought I'd see if anyone here was familiar with this particular work/take on an old theory, and get the 'Bad Astronomy' opinion.
My impression of that site is that it is g*rb*ge.

Although the idea of a Sun companion star is intriguing, the authors of that webpage don't just present the idea--they also try to tear down the idea of precession, and in the process shoot themselves in the foot, it seems to me.

For instance, in their first list, which they say are "a number of well-documented solar system anomalies", they have the bullets:

Sidereal vs. Solar Time : Why is the delta (time difference) between a sidereal and solar day attributed to the curvature of the Earth's orbit (around the Sun), but the delta between a sidereal "year" and solar year attributed to precession?


Equinoctial Slippage: Lunisolar precession theory would cause the seasons to shift were it not for a concurrent slippage of the equinoctial point around the Earth's orbit path (ecliptic). Lunar cycle equations contradict this motion. Why can't it be explained with the current theory?
I don't think each is an "anomaly" so much as willful misunderstanding on their part. And they present them as something mysterious that can't be explained by the current theory, but I don't think that's true at all.

Maybe I'm missing something.