Binary Sun Theory

[Robert Tulip]

A theory, promoted by Walter Cruttenden, argues that precession of the equinox is caused by a binary companion to the sun. Has this any scientific basis?

Mr Cruttenden's website claims that "science is on the verge of an amazing discovery - our Sun has a companion star carrying us through a great cycle of stellar influences." He claims in a movie The Great Year that the cause of precession of the equinox may go beyond the solar system. I thought lunisolar torque provided a comprehensive physical explanation for precession, and am just wondering if Cruttenden's theory is just a rehashing of Vedic myth. Another website makes various claims about the scientific status of this theory.

[WayneFrancis]

There are other theories about our solar system being part of a binary system like the nemesis theory put forth by Prof Richard Muller from Berkeley. If it is out there and big enough it could effect our orbit but I don't know if it is needed in the current model. he Nemesis theory is more about trying to explain extinction cycles and saying it might be due to a large body disturbing orbits of Kuiper belt and Ort cloud object sending them hurtling into the inner solar system.

[Halcyon Dayz]

The search function tells me that Cruttenden gets mentioned in 12 threads.

[Celestial Mechanic]

We get this question from time to time. Mr. Cruttenden's hypothesis is rubbish, pure and simple. The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge. I wrote a set of dialogues that deals with the issue, as summarized below.

In this set of dialogues I dispose of the idea that the precession of the equinoxes is caused by our Solar System being in orbit about Sirius and show that the Moon and the Sun account for more than 99 percent of it by actually calculating it. Accounting for 99 percent of the precession also disposes of precession caused by a companion brown dwarf as well.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven.

[astromark]

Lets hope that clarity sinks in., but it will not and the phantom star will linger on and, on... Oh I give up. We all know the truth is we are going to witness a star or is that Nebaru come out of nowhere and wreck havoc across this solar system. Yes the Sun has a companion. Could it be Alpha cent., proxima... naa, I did not think so.
Is this three times this week that a compleatly unfounded by any real science idea has drifted by here ? Thousands of professional and private astronomers have failed to find this as factual. Why is that... ITS NOT REAL.

[astromark]

I do not wish to corrupt or steal this thread but,... I do have a question that is after doing a search for a place, sort of related. Popular or mainstream view would have us except that some 4.5 billion years ago this solar system was formed. Sort of co lest from the raw matter that was ejected from and formed into what we have here. What I want to know is what of the before ? Are we part of the Orion group ? Or was Sol on her own. Can we ever know of what this matter once was part of ?

[Robert Tulip]

We get this question from time to time. Mr. Cruttenden's hypothesis is rubbish, pure and simple. The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge. I wrote a set of dialogues that deals with the issue, as summarized below.

In this set of dialogues I dispose of the idea that the precession of the equinoxes is caused by our Solar System being in orbit about Sirius and show that the Moon and the Sun account for more than 99 percent of it by actually calculating it. Accounting for 99 percent of the precession also disposes of precession caused by a companion brown dwarf as well.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven.

Thanks very much Celestial Mechanic, much appreciated. Your summary in Part Five states

Now let's put this all together. Remember that there is a factor of sin(eps)*cos(eps) from the torque which is divided by sin(eps) so that we have an additional factor of cos(eps):" Precession = (5.476x10^-7 + 1.1871x10^-6) arcseconds/s * cos(23.439 deg) * 86400 s/d * 36525 d/Jcy = 5022.58 arcseconds/Jcy where Jcy is Julian century. This is much closer to the value given in Danby, which is 5029.0966. I'm now off by 0.13 percent. And not a single Sumerian tablet consulted!"

I find it disturbing that people like Cruttenden try to drum up interest in mythological interpretations of precession but cannot even get simple mathematics into their head, and continue to promote claims that are demonstrably wrong.

[Nowhere Man]

It's all about the money they can make by selling a dubious idea.

Fred

[Delvo]

There are other theories about our solar system being part of a binary system like the nemesis theory put forth by Prof Richard Muller from Berkeley. If it is out there and big enough it could effect our orbit but I don't know if it is needed in the current model. he Nemesis theory is more about trying to explain extinction cycles and saying it might be due to a large body disturbing orbits of Kuiper belt and Ort cloud object sending them hurtling into the inner solar system.

It's also extremely far away, too far to change anything more than once per year, so far that it has essentially no effect right now. Any cycle related to a star such as that one would be millions of years long, not a year or a half or fourth of a year.

[trinitree88]

We get this question from time to time. Mr. Cruttenden's hypothesis is rubbish, pure and simple. The precession of the equinoxes is caused by the gravitational pull of the Sun and Moon on the Earth's equatorial bulge. I wrote a set of dialogues that deals with the issue, as summarized below.

In this set of dialogues I dispose of the idea that the precession of the equinoxes is caused by our Solar System being in orbit about Sirius and show that the Moon and the Sun account for more than 99 percent of it by actually calculating it. Accounting for 99 percent of the precession also disposes of precession caused by a companion brown dwarf as well.

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five, Part Six, Part Seven.

Celestial. Thank you. Well reasoned, observationally based and quantitatively verified science...but as any instructor knows....why would anybody believe that when there is always another nitwit idea based on a vision seen in drifting clouds to believe? pete

[Celestial Mechanic]

I find it disturbing that people like Cruttenden try to drum up interest in mythological interpretations of precession but cannot even get simple mathematics into their head, and continue to promote claims that are demonstrably wrong.

Celestial. Thank you. Well reasoned, observationally based and quantitatively verified science...but as any instructor knows....why would anybody believe that when there is always another nitwit idea based on a vision seen in drifting clouds to believe? pete

We must not give up otherwise the nitwits win. Every time this topic comes up, especially if accompanied by claims that Newtonian gravity does not explain the precession of the equinoxes, I will point people to those dialogues and show that it can be so explained, and explained quite well.

[rommel543]

I find it disturbing that people like Cruttenden try to drum up interest in mythological interpretations of precession but cannot even get simple mathematics into their head, and continue to promote claims that are demonstrably wrong.

The problem that I find with the majority of the woo woo out there is that they are quoting ancient tablets, text, etc from a time period that the people believed their deities brought about the tides, seasons, plague, etc. They thought the stars were in fact the deities and like many of the Mythological stories the god needs a companion. The problem is they couldn't see a companion big enough for the Sun so it must be out wandering around somewhere. Once you start adding in the ideas that the dots moving around are planets and stars, well then there must be another planet or star out there because it was mentioned in the stories we've been telling.

Another issue that I have with the binary, or rouge planet theory is the idea of local debris clearing. We can see by looking at stellar nurseries that as the planets are forming they clear the surrounding dust and debris from their orbital path. The same goes with binary star systems, the debris clouds around them are much bigger because the gravitation effect from both stars clears it out. The problem with the rouge planet or binary star theories is we have an Oort Cloud and we know where it is. If there was a companion star orbiting the sun, it wouldn't be there. After 5-7 billion years the starts would have made multiple orbits around each other clearing out the Oort Cloud to a MUCH bigger radius. It wouldn't fill in afterward. Even the idea of a rouge planet with an extremely eccentric elliptical orbit (say that 10 times fast), the orbit would have happened thousands, if not millions, of times and thus clearing out the orbital path.

The problem with this woo woo is that it fails to pass the achems razor test. To make it believable they have to make a complicated stories and site all sort of obscure text. They can't show any simple or logical mathematical proof. Nuff Said

[Robert Tulip]

Thanks again guys. The friend who raised this binary theory with me sent me the following comments from a review of Cruttenden's book associated with the so-called Binary Research Institute in California. If you can bear to read it, it shows, as in the thread linked by Celestial Mechanic, that completely aberrant theorists are able to use quasi-scientific language to sow confusion and deception. The gall of these BRI people is amazing. I'm not asking for point by point rebuttal, which I think is sufficiently clear from the above replies. However, it is an extraordinary case of starting with a premise (Vedic myth of binary sun) and wilfulling distorting all evidence, including manipulating the language of science, to conform with the preconception. The comments on phlogiston are not without irony.

Binary Research Institute Review of Book by Walter Cruttenden
What evidence is there to support the claims of Cruttenden and these Indian astronomers that the precession is due to a binary star system versus the spinning top wobble (lunisolar theory)? Spinning tops do not speed up, for one thing, while the precession has been speeding up for the past several hundred years.

[page 109] And here at the Binary Research Institute we have found that lunar rotation equations do not support lunisolar theory, nor does the Earth's motion relative to the Perseids meteor shower support the theory. We have also found that precession is actually accelerating and acts more like a body that follows Kepler's laws (in an elliptical orbit) than a wobbling top that should be slowing down. We have put forth at least half a dozen circumstantial arguments indicating that precession is a result of something other than local forces. [RJM: as the lunisolar theory claims for its basis]

Usually a theory in its decadence requires stretches of logic and plausibility to explain itself, such as happened to the now defunct theory of phlogiston which survived all assaults against it by the oxygen theory and finally went down to an ignominious defeat, never to be heard from again. Thousands of establishment scientists believed phlogiston was given off into the air during combustion, while we know now instead that it is oxygen which was absorbed. Rather a dramatic difference in theories, isn't it? Phlogiston was like negative oxygen. And the supporters of the phlogiston theory fought to the bitter end against the demise of their theory. Science won out against science. It was a bitter victory. We may expect a similar battle before the Binary Star theory of the Precession of the Equinox replaces the lunisolar theory, but replace it, it will because the data and simplicity of the Binary Star theory is similar to the oxygen theory which replaced the complicated phlogiston theory (3).

[page 114] The lunisolar theory, failing to account for any other reference frames, is a de facto static Sun and solar system model. It therefore requires any and all changes in the orientation of the Earth to the fixed stars to be attributed strictly to local forces. The binary model, on the other hand, is not dependent on massive local forces to twist the Earth backward on its axis because it allows that the Earth's change in orientation (relative to objects outside the solar system) could be due to the geometric effect of a solar system that curves through space (a binary motion), where little local force is required.

Shortly before the big battle raged which led to the fall of the phlogiston theory, anomalies in the theory began to show up. We have already mentioned the acceleration of precession, the first, and perhaps most important anomaly. Here are additional anomalies that are showing up in the lunisolar theory. Summarized from the table on page 139:

Anomalies of Lunisolar Theory

Precession is shown to be relative to objects outside of solar system, not to objects inside. (opposite of claims by lunisolar)
Sol is part of a binary star system as a majority of all stars are. (opposite of lunisolar claim of a solitary star system for Sol)
Complicated, unproven theories are required to explain Earth's changing orientation to inertial space. (explained simply by curved path of Earth through space in Binary Star theory.)
different physics required to correlate the sidereal and solar years. (these are the natural result of a binary orbit, and no further explanation is required)
Sol does not have enough angular momentum (until you add in the binary orbit angular momentum of Sol)
Sheer edge of solar system unexplained and unexpected (but a natural result of the sweeping of the two stars when they orbit through the Grand Center)
Lack of precession of objects within the solar system in inexplicable (natural result of binary star system)
Comet paths should be random but are not.
The lunisolar theory reveals "disparate theories to explain wobble, time deltas, angular momentum, etc." The application of Occam's razor would clearly lead us to accept the Binary Star theory over the lunisolar theory, just as its application led scientists eventually to discard the phlogiston theory for the oxygen theory.


...
During Roman times, the relative speed of Sol and Sirius would be slower than now as the two star systems would have been moving apart from one another. This would have caused a red shift due to doppler effects and Sirius would have seemed to be a red star. During the past several hundred years, Sol and Sirius are approaching one another again, and Sirius has taken on a blue cast, exactly what a binary star theory would predict.

[page 174] It has already been mentioned that the Sumerians had an important star named Nibiru, a star that "crossed" other stars. While there is no cuneiform text that says Nibiru is Sirius, they do say it is a "red star," and if ancient observations are correct it was indeed red in the time of Sumer.

[rommel543]

Sol is part of a binary star system as a majority of all stars are. (opposite of lunisolar claim of a solitary star system for Sol)

There are plenty of solitary star systems. There are even triple star systems and higher.

During Roman times, the relative speed of Sol and Sirius would be slower than now as the two star systems would have been moving apart from one another. This would have caused a red shift due to doppler effects and Sirius would have seemed to be a red star. During the past several hundred years, Sol and Sirius are approaching one another again, and Sirius has taken on a blue cast, exactly what a binary star theory would predict.

[page 174] It has already been mentioned that the Sumerians had an important star named Nibiru, a star that "crossed" other stars. While there is no cuneiform text that says Nibiru is Sirius, they do say it is a "red star," and if ancient observations are correct it was indeed red in the time of Sumer.

Again with the quoting of "ancient text",

[astromark]

Utter rubbish... What some ancient society may have observed was not long ago on a cosmic scale... what ever it was it was not Sirius. Plot the motions of those stars...
Test. Question and confirm... no. I do not see any truth here.

[PraedSt]

In this set of dialogues...

Those are really good Celestial Mechanic. I'm going to try and work through your calculations; might learn something. Thanks.

[Nowhere Man]

During Roman times, the relative speed of Sol and Sirius would be slower than now as the two star systems would have been moving apart from one another. This would have caused a red shift due to doppler effects and Sirius would have seemed to be a red star. During the past several hundred years, Sol and Sirius are approaching one another again, and Sirius has taken on a blue cast, exactly what a binary star theory would predict.

Exercise for the student: Assuming Sirius has a normal stellar spectrum, and appears white when you are not moving relative to it, how fast would it have to be moving relative to you (or vice-versa) in order to appear red or blue?

Fred

[Robert Tulip]

Does this BRI material take the cake for a genuine piece of Bad Astronomy?

From the earlier quoted "review":

Anomalies of Lunisolar Theory

1. Precession is shown to be relative to objects outside of solar system, not to objects inside. (opposite of claims by lunisolar)
2. Sol is part of a binary star system as a majority of all stars are. (opposite of lunisolar claim of a solitary star system for Sol)
3. Complicated, unproven theories are required to explain Earth's changing orientation to inertial space. (explained simply by curved path of Earth through space in Binary Star theory.)
4. different physics required to correlate the sidereal and solar years. (these are the natural result of a binary orbit, and no further explanation is required)
5. Sol does not have enough angular momentum (until you add in the binary orbit angular momentum of Sol)
6. Sheer edge of solar system unexplained and unexpected (but a natural result of the sweeping of the two stars when they orbit through the Grand Center)
7. Lack of precession of objects within the solar system in inexplicable (natural result of binary star system)
8. Comet paths should be random but are not.
9. The lunisolar theory reveals "disparate theories to explain wobble, time deltas, angular momentum, etc." The application of Occam's razor would clearly lead us to accept the Binary Star theory over the lunisolar theory, just as its application led scientists eventually to discard the phlogiston theory for the oxygen theory.
10. During Roman times, the relative speed of Sol and Sirius would be slower than now as the two star systems would have been moving apart from one another. This would have caused a red shift due to doppler effects and Sirius would have seemed to be a red star. During the past several hundred years, Sol and Sirius are approaching one another again, and Sirius has taken on a blue cast, exactly what a binary star theory would predict.

[Durakken]

One would think that if we are able to detect planets around other stars we'd be able to detect another star around Sol and it would be part of the solar System model in science books, at least at college level. v.v

[Amber Robot]

Exercise for the student: Assuming Sirius has a normal stellar spectrum, and appears white when you are not moving relative to it, how fast would it have to be moving relative to you (or vice-versa) in order to appear red or blue?

Fred

[rommel543]

Exercise for the student: Assuming Sirius has a normal stellar spectrum, and appears white when you are not moving relative to it, how fast would it have to be moving relative to you (or vice-versa) in order to appear red or blue?

Fred

I probably have my math wrong but, ~5200km/s. And in the story is slowed turned around and is coming back at the same speed?

[Hornblower]

I probably have my math wrong but, ~5200km/s. And in the story is slowed turned around and is coming back at the same speed?

I think we would need vastly higher speeds than that.

See the Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Scroll down to Redshift formulas, about 1/5 of the way down the page. Your number matches the one in the animation on the right. The math itself is not wrong, but it appears to be applied to the wrong type of light source. We might get that much color change with a monochromatic source such as a low pressure sodium lamp, because our eyes are extremely sensitive to slight changes in the wavelength in that range. However, that is not what we have in an incandescent object such as a star. Here we have a broad spectrum whose maximum amplitude is at a wavelength inversely proportional to the temperature. The color is very pale compared to that of a monochromatic emitter, and a much larger redshift or blueshift is required to cause a noticeable change. For small shifts such as the Wiki sample, the color change from shifting any given component of the spectrum will be washed out by the concurrent changes of adjoining components.

Sirius has an effective temperature of about 10,000K. To make it look like an M type star (pastel orange) we need to redshift the the wavelengths of the broad spectrum by about a factor of 3 to match the M star's effective temperature about 3,300K. From the formulas given in the Wiki article, I find a velocity of about 0.8c, or 240,000 km/s, away from us.

To make Sirius look like an O or early B star (very pale blue), we need the spectrum corresponding to about 30,000K, which means shortening the wavelengths by about a factor of 3. This requires about 0.8c toward us.

The relative velocity of Sirius has had no major change in recorded history, and even if it did, it is too slow to have any visible effect on the perceived color.

[Nowhere Man]

Precisely my point. In order for the color of a star's light to be changed by its velocity, it would have to be moving at ridiculously high relative speed. Thus my complete disbelief in this claim, which makes the other claims highly suspect at the very least.

Fred

[mugaliens]

...we are going to witness a star or is that Nebaru come out of nowhere and wreck havoc...

Nebaru - Sounds like Disney's next cartoon villain.

[robross]

There are other theories about our solar system being part of a binary system like the nemesis theory put forth by Prof Richard Muller from Berkeley. If it is out there and big enough it could effect our orbit but I don't know if it is needed in the current model. he Nemesis theory is more about trying to explain extinction cycles and saying it might be due to a large body disturbing orbits of Kuiper belt and Ort cloud object sending them hurtling into the inner solar system.

We don't need to have a binary companion to have Kuiper belt objects become disturbed and cause extinction events. Our Sun, and hence solar system, are in orbit around the galactic center and complete one orbit every 250 million years or so. As we move around the galaxy, we no doubt move closer to other star systems that are also orbiting. If we get close enough to any or them, these could perturb the objects in the outer solar system and cause them to hurtle inwards.

Rob

[A.DIM]

While BRI's info is bogus and we may not need a binary companion, I don't think the matter is settled or can be dismissed.

Various discoveries support and scientists continue to suggest and search for a "perturber" in the outer system. Daniel Whitmire is one such scientist. His 2006 publication regarding the origin of Sedna-like objects reaches this conclusion:

"We conclude that a model of a hypothetical wide-binary solar companion of mass ~3-10Mj orbiting at distances of ~10,000 AU is no less cosmogonically plausible than is the stellar impulse scenario."

[rommel543]

I think we would need vastly higher speeds than that.

See the Wiki article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

Scroll down to Redshift formulas, about 1/5 of the way down the page. Your number matches the one in the animation on the right. The math itself is not wrong, but it appears to be applied to the wrong type of light source. We might get that much color change with a monochromatic source such as a low pressure sodium lamp, because our eyes are extremely sensitive to slight changes in the wavelength in that range. However, that is not what we have in an incandescent object such as a star. Here we have a broad spectrum whose maximum amplitude is at a wavelength inversely proportional to the temperature. The color is very pale compared to that of a monochromatic emitter, and a much larger redshift or blueshift is required to cause a noticeable change. For small shifts such as the Wiki sample, the color change from shifting any given component of the spectrum will be washed out by the concurrent changes of adjoining components.

Sirius has an effective temperature of about 10,000K. To make it look like an M type star (pastel orange) we need to redshift the the wavelengths of the broad spectrum by about a factor of 3 to match the M star's effective temperature about 3,300K. From the formulas given in the Wiki article, I find a velocity of about 0.8c, or 240,000 km/s, away from us.

To make Sirius look like an O or early B star (very pale blue), we need the spectrum corresponding to about 30,000K, which means shortening the wavelengths by about a factor of 3. This requires about 0.8c toward us.

The relative velocity of Sirius has had no major change in recorded history, and even if it did, it is too slow to have any visible effect on the perceived color.

OK cool, I used the math from my Astronomy book and looking at the Wiki site they are using the same example. Should have read the book example more throughly and seen they were discussing a simple light source.

[Swift]

<This references some temporarily removed posts>

Response - by Walter Cruttenden - July 2009

Several posters on the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum (BAUT) have expressed doubts about the non-conventional “binary model” of precession.
<two very long posts follow>

Polestar101,
It looks very much like you are posting material for Walter Cruttenden. That is strictly against the rules of the board.

7. Second & Third Party Posting

Do not post on behalf of other people. In other words, if someone you know has something to say relevant to the discussion in a thread, have them register and post it. Think of them as a copyrighted source: you can quote them in short amounts, but if there is something substantial they want to add, they must do it themselves.

If Mr. Cruttenden would like to debate his hypothesis, that's great, but he needs to register on BAUT and do it himself.

If what you posted was not posting for him and it is not copyrighted materials, please drop me or another moderator an explanation by PM, and the posts will be restored.

[A.DIM]

Hi Walter, welcome back.

I look forward to you defending your ideas. I may even buy your book if I find what you say here stimulating enough, well reasoned, supported.

I suspect this will be moved to ATM and so you'll have 30days for discourse; good luck.




ETA: uh nevermind, I should've looked around a bit more ....

[Swift]

I suspect this will be moved to ATM and so you'll have 30days for discourse; good luck.

Ah, you know our ways grasshopper.

Polestar's posts have been restored and spun off into a new thread in ATM, so they get a fresh 30 days for debate.