Our Sun is part of a Binary Star System: Fascinating to see what ancient religions understood

[Gxg (G²)]

Found this rather fascinating presentation on a Binary Star System and thought it gave a lot of good food for thought (more at BinaryResearch) :

Binary stars: friends or foes?​

​

The documentary re-introduces an idea presented thousands of years ago in Plato’s Timaeus and then again in The Holy Science by Sri Yukteswar, that a great 24,000-year astronomical cycle, including the precession of the equinox, may result from the relationship of our sun to a distant binary partner.

It's Fascinating to consider when looking at the stars and considering how our own world may be one. Binary Solar Systems are a very intriguing concept and one of the reasons I enjoy seeing the history of differing cultures/religions is because they way they interpreted our solar system and galaxy intrigue me, especially when seeing how many Indigenous cultures (as an example) took a lot of time to map out stars before science evolved/built on their work. I appreciate how ancient cultures studied and documented astronomy. More can be found in the documentary "Our Binary Star System: the Great Cycle Hindu Yugas 2012"

​

 

[Halbhh]

I had thought that was considered unlikely since astronomers have searched hard to find a nearby star to be a candidate, and haven't found one. Perhaps a brown dwarf or very small red dwarf? Even just 50 Jupiter masses would be plenty enough to cause havoc in the Kuiper belts if in the plane, sending comets sunward.

I see the idea might have had one that got torn away sometime long ago.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I had thought that was considered unlikely since astronomers have searched hard to find a nearby star to be a candidate, and haven't found one. Perhaps a brown dwarf or very small red dwarf? Even just 50 Jupiter masses would be plenty enough to cause havoc in the Kuiper belts if in the plane, sending comets sunward.

I see the idea might have had one that got torn away sometime long ago.

There are still a lot of places discussing the issue.

In example, as noted in Binary Companion Theory - Introduction | Binary Research Institute:

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.

While there is no obvious visible companion star to our Sun, there could be a dark binary, such as a brown dwarf or possibly a relatively small black hole, either of which might be very difficult to detect, without accurate and lengthy analysis.

There is also the possibility that our sun might be in a binary or complex gravitational relationship with one of several nearby “visible” stars. This scenario may require thinking beyond standard Newtonian dynamics to embrace MOND or MOG or some similar theory (that suggests that the constant of G might be stronger between stellar objects than between planetary objects within the solar system). There could be many types of unknown and unidentified masses that might cause our solar system to curve through space, including the local stellar cluster and even the galactic center to some small degree, each producing some small effect within the total precession observable. Consequently, at this point our work is primarily focused on understanding the precession observable and its nuances as the likely signature of our solar system’s angular velocity around some common center of mass. We believe that this approach of analyzing the precession observable (the sun’s motion relative to the fixed stars as seen from earth) will provide valuable and helpful data regarding the sun’s most likely stellar companion (if one exists).

In summary, beyond direct detection – one way to determine if we are in a binary or multiple star system is to see if the Sun is curving through space. To us on Earth that means we should experience a gradual “changing orientation to inertial space.” Such a phenomenon is observed as the precession of the equinox.​

More can be noted in "Is the Sun Part of a Binary Star System? - Six Reasons to Consider" (Is the Sun Part of a Binary Star System? - Six Reasons to Consider -- Sott.net )


Also, According to one review:

Scientists speculated that Nemesis (a theoretical dwarf star thought to be a companion to our sun) may affect the Oort cloud, which is made up of icy rocks surrounding the sun beyond the range of Pluto. Many of these chunks travel around the sun in a long-term, elliptical orbit. As they draw closer to the star, their ice begins to melt and stream behind them, making them recognizable as comets.

If Nemesis traveled through the Oort cloud every 27 million years, some argue, it could kick extra comets out of the sphere and send them hurling toward the inner solar system — and Earth. Impact rates would increase, and mass extinctions would be more common.

The Kuiper Belt, a disk of debris that lies inside of the solar system, also has a well-defined outer edge that could be sheared off by a companion star. Researchers have found other systems where a companion star seems to have affected the shape of the debris disks.

The dwarf planet Sedna lends further credence in the eyes of some to the existence of a companion star for the sun. With an orbit of up to 12,000 years, the planet presents a puzzle to many. Scientists have suggested that a massive object such as a dim star could be responsible for keeping Sedna so far from the sun.

Scientists speculated that Nemesis may affect the Oort cloud, which is made up of icy rocks surrounding the sun beyond the range of Pluto. Many of these chunks travel around the sun in a long-term, elliptical orbit. As they draw closer to the star, their ice begins to melt and stream behind them, making them recognizable as comets. If Nemesis traveled through the Oort cloud every 27 million years, some argue, it could kick extra comets out of the sphere and send them hurling toward the inner solar system — and Earth. Impact rates would increase, and mass extinctions would be more common. The Kuiper Belt, a disk of debris that lies inside of the solar system, also has a well-defined outer edge that could be sheared off by a companion star. Researchers have found other systems where a companion star seems to have affected the shape of the debris disks. The dwarf planet Sedna lends further credence in the eyes of some to the existence of a companion star for the sun. With an orbit of up to 12,000 years, the planet presents a puzzle to many. Scientists have suggested that a massive object such as a dim star could be responsible for keeping Sedna so far from the sun.​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I had thought that was considered unlikely since astronomers have searched hard to find a nearby star to be a candidate, and haven't found one. Perhaps a brown dwarf or very small red dwarf? Even just 50 Jupiter masses would be plenty enough to cause havoc in the Kuiper belts if in the plane, sending comets sunward.

Recent studies have brought the idea back into discussion again when seeing Stars being born in pairs, more in Where Is Our Sun's Twin? - The Atlantic

As noted there:

In the 1980s, some astronomers started batting around the idea that the sun had a long-lost twin, circling undetected in the edges of the solar system. They suggested that the existence of a companion star to our own might explain some cataclysmic events on Earth, like the mass extinction of the dinosaurs. Perhaps the orbit of this star, they said, was capable of disrupting the Oort cloud, a massive region of icy objects beyond Neptune’s orbit. Its gravitational forces could dislodge comets and send them hurtling toward Earth. The astronomers named the hypothetical star Nemesis, after the Greek goddess of retribution.

Today, the theory of Nemesis, of an evil twin lurking in the night sky and messing with comets, has fallen out of circulation. The companion star has never been found. But that doesn’t mean it never existed.

Most sun-like stars in the universe—stars with masses similar to our own—exist in pairs. Astronomers don’t yet understand exactly how these pairs, known as binaries, form. But as they dig deeper into the mysteries of star formation, they’re finding some clues. The latest is a new study of a distant cluster of young stars in the Milky Way that suggests nearly all sun-like stars are born in pairs, bolstering the claim that our sun has a twin.​

 

[Radrook]

I had thought that was considered unlikely since astronomers have searched hard to find a nearby star to be a candidate, and haven't found one. Perhaps a brown dwarf or very small red dwarf? Even just 50 Jupiter masses would be plenty enough to cause havoc in the Kuiper belts if in the plane, sending comets sunward.

I see the idea might have had one that got torn away sometime long ago.

The real question for a theist is why would a creator place such a disruptive star in that sensitive vicinity to our Earth.

 

[Halbhh]

The real question for a theist is why would a creator place such a disruptive star in that sensitive vicinity to our Earth.

Well, the big impacts in the distant past worked out very well for us mammals.... You cannot deduce a conclusion either way, on that alone, logically, eh?

 

[Radrook]

Well, the big impacts in the distant past worked out very well for us mammals.... You cannot deduce a conclusion either way, on that alone, logically, eh?

Christian understanding of the creator is supposed to be Bible-dependent. Obviously that's not the way the Genesis tells us it happened. So it demands that we infuse meaning into Genesis which isn't there or reject it as myth.

 

[Halbhh]

Christian understanding of the creator is supposed to be Bible-dependent. Obviously that's not the way the Genesis tells us it happened. So it demands that we infuse meaning into Genesis which isn't there or reject it as myth.

Or.....read without preconception.... Without imposing ideas onto the text. Let it speak, without being decided you already know what it will say. And then like good poetry, it will begin to communicate on a subtle level, like poetry does.

 

[Radrook]

Or.....read without preconception.... Without imposing ideas onto the text. Let it speak, without being decided you already know what it will say. And then like good poetry, it will begin to communicate on a subtle level, like poetry does.

The poetic books of the OT are Psalms, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Proverbs. The others are predominantly prophetic and historical documents. Reading them without preconception includes reading them without the preconception that they are really expressing modern-day evolutionary theories that would make Jesus descended from an animal and his genealogical record nothing less than a blatant lie..

 

[Halbhh]

The poetic books of the OT are Psalms, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and proverbs. The others are predominantly prophetic and historical documents.

To get the additional meanings, the key meanings in various things like the Garden of Eden in Gen chapter 2 and 3, which has several more subtle meanings, we can't be doing to talking, as if we are the teacher, because we have to listen instead in order to hear -- "ears that hear". It's a humble place to be in. We are hearing, listening, and the text is doing the talking. Then we get much more than before.

It's humble, and that's key.

 

[Radrook]

To get the additional meanings, the key meanings in various things like the Garden of Eden in Gen chapter 2 and 3, which has several more subtle meanings, we can't be doing to talking, as if we are the teacher, because we have to listen instead in order to hear -- "ears that hear". It's a humble place to be in. We are hearing, listening, and the text is doing the talking. Then we get much more than before.

It's humble, and that's key.

We get so much more that we wind up saying that Jesus descended from an animal.

 

[Halbhh]

We get so much more that we wind up saying that Jesus descended from an animal.

I don't get that. No. Why think so? I think that if God used evolution, that He intervened to make Adam. In other words, I take that part literally, but I don't try to base my faith on a way of guessing about something in Genesis, but instead on believing in Christ and doing what He said to do. Nothing else is secure. Don't take a chance on that!

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Christian understanding of the creator is supposed to be Bible-dependent. Obviously that's not the way the Genesis tells us it happened. So it demands that we infuse meaning into Genesis which isn't there or reject it as myth.

Genesis never laid out all the specifics for how our solar system worked (i.e. Astroid belt, differing comets, etc.) - so there's already a lot of problems when reading how God made lights to govern the day and night (without talking on the other things to impact those lights, be it gravity or other factors).

The Christian understanding is based on Christ - not on seeing the Scriptures as a scientific textbook.

 

[Vyrzaharak]

Today I learned something new, and I'd never had thought it'd be from this kind of forum. Thanks for the resources.

 

[Halbhh]

Genesis never laid out all the specifics for how our solar system worked (i.e. Astroid belt, differing comets, etc.) - so there's already a lot of problems when reading how God made lights to govern the day and night (without talking on the other things to impact those lights, be it gravity or other factors).

The Christian understanding is based on Christ - not on seeing the Scriptures as a scientific textbook.

day 1 starts in verse 3, after something on the order of 9 billion years it appears. The light in verse 3 is the sun, but it is not visible from the perspective of the planet surface. The days are likely given in a vision, as seen from the surface (it would just be odd to have a space based camera view, eh?). The early Earth had constant and unbroken cloud cover due to warmth, so you get the night/day cycle started with the sun lighting but no visibility through the clouds. Day 4 is the first 'day' when there is visibility, a break in the clouds. etc. It's not at all hard to see alignment to modern planetary formation theories if you know those theories. Reading in astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology is a hobby interest of mine, over 35 years now.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

day 1 starts in verse 3, after something on the order of 9 billion years it appears. The light in verse 3 is the sun, but it is not visible from the perspective of the planet surface. The days are likely given in a vision, as seen from the surface (it would just be odd to have a space based camera view, eh?). The early Earth had constant and unbroken cloud cover due to warmth, so you get the night/day cycle started with the sun lighting but no visibility through the clouds. Day 4 is the first 'day' when there is visibility, a break in the clouds. etc. It's not at all hard to see alignment to modern planetary formation theories if you know those theories. Reading in astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology is a hobby interest of mine, over 35 years now.

Interesting to consider those specific dynamics you mentioned. And cool to know you have that as a hobby with cosmology and astronomy. I can definitely see what it is you're talking on when you lay it out like that.

I remember studying one time on how God made light and divided it from darkness. People assume that he made the sun on that day - but it was really light in the ENTIRE Universe. And it would take time. From an Old Earth perspective, time is not a problem.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Thanks for the resources.

Glad to be a blessing...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Today I learned something new, and I'd never had thought it'd be from this kind of forum. Thanks for the resources.

 

[JackRT]

So it demands that we infuse meaning into Genesis which isn't there or reject it as myth.

I prefer to accept it as myth.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

day 1 starts in verse 3, after something on the order of 9 billion years it appears. The light in verse 3 is the sun, but it is not visible from the perspective of the planet surface. The days are likely given in a vision, as seen from the surface (it would just be odd to have a space based camera view, eh?). The early Earth had constant and unbroken cloud cover due to warmth, so you get the night/day cycle started with the sun lighting but no visibility through the clouds. Day 4 is the first 'day' when there is visibility, a break in the clouds. etc. It's not at all hard to see alignment to modern planetary formation theories if you know those theories. Reading in astrophysics/astronomy/cosmology is a hobby interest of mine, over 35 years now.

Interesting when reading on Genesis and seeing that even with God making the moon and the Sun, the other aspects of how the moon operates are not necessarily spelled out in Genesis.

A lot of folks were thinking this in-depth when considering how the recent Solar Eclipse came about

​