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

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,057
✟326,742.00
Faith
Atheist
I don't understand why believers who reject science's conclusions then go on to try to make the Bible sound scientific? Does this reflect a subconscious NEED for the Bible to be rationally explained so that they can trust it? Why does it even matter?
Perhaps it makes them feel more comfortable with rejecting science's conclusions if they can convince themselves they have an 'alternative' scientific explanation - much as the Whitehouse feels more comfortable calling falsehoods 'alternative truths'.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Petersen

Senior Veteran
May 11, 2005
16,077
3,390
✟162,912.00
Faith
Deist
Politics
US-Libertarian
Perhaps it makes them feel more comfortable with rejecting science's conclusions if they can convince themselves they have an 'alternative' scientific explanation - much as the Whitehouse feels more comfortable calling falsehoods 'alternative truths'.

But why do they need and alternate 'scientific' explanation? Why not just be honest and say, 'I don't care what science says. The Bible says otherwise.'
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,057
✟326,742.00
Faith
Atheist
But why do they need and alternate 'scientific' explanation? Why not just be honest and say, 'I don't care what science says. The Bible says otherwise.'
Maybe they realise that science is an acknowledged route to knowledge and want to be able to claim scientific validity to persuade waverers - and, perhaps, reinforce their own belief?

Ultimately, I think it's just one of the ways they find to reduce cognitive dissonance.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,765
1,428
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟160,220.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
It's more like an open question. Consider the mainstream astronomy viewpoint (I think still much like this 2010 article, and I'll list a more recent article just after):

Is our Sun part of a binary star system? An unseen companion star, nicknamed 'Nemesis,' may be sending comets towards Earth. If Nemesis exists, NASA's new WISE telescope should be able to spot it.

A dark object may be lurking near our solar system, occasionally kicking comets in our direction.

Nicknamed “Nemesis” or “The Death Star,” this undetected object could be a red or brown dwarf star, or an even darker presence several times the mass of Jupiter.

Why do scientists think something could be hidden beyond the edge of our solar system? Originally, Nemesis was suggested as a way to explain a cycle of mass extinctions on Earth.

The paleontologists David Raup and Jack Sepkoski claim that, over the last 250 million years, life on Earth has faced extinction in a 26-million-year cycle. Astronomers proposed comet impacts as a possible cause for these catastrophes.

Our solar system is surrounded by a vast collection of icy bodies called the Oort Cloud. If our Sun were part of a binary system in which two gravitationally-bound stars orbit a common center of mass, this interaction could disturb the Oort Cloud on a periodic basis, sending comets whizzing towards us.

An asteroid impact is famously responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, but large comet impacts may be equally deadly. A comet may have been the cause of the Tunguska event in Russia in 1908. That explosion had about a thousand times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, and it flattened an estimated 80 million trees over an 830 square mile area.

While there’s little doubt about the destructive power of cosmic impacts, there is no evidence that comets have periodically caused mass extinctions on our planet. The theory of periodic extinctions itself is still debated, with many insisting that more proof is needed. Even if the scientific consensus is that extinction events don’t occur in a predictable cycle, there are now other reasons to suspect a dark companion to the Sun.
...(continues)


Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-03-wise-nemesis.html#jCp

But, see, it's not been discovered yet, and astronomers have been searching a while, using mathematical predictions even on where to look, and so....such a distruptor of the Oort cloud, 'Nemesis', may or may not be still around, but if it is still around, it's relatively dark/small.

Nemesis Star Theory: The Sun's 'Death Star' Companion
In order to avoid significantly affecting the orbit of the planets, as well as to avoid observation, Nemesis must remain at a distance from the sun. But astronomers argue that such an orbit would be inherently unstable. Traveling so far out, Nemesis would be affected by other stars moving through the galaxy. The resulting orbit would not provide a steady kick to the Oort cloud but would be constantly changing.

In 2017, a new study suggested that nearly all stars like the sun were born with companions. The astronomers did detailed studies of young stars in the Perseus molecular cloud and backed up their work with modeling. But "Nemesis," if it did indeed exist at that time, broke free of the sun early in its history and moved into the rest of the Milky Way's population, the astronomers said.

Glad for the review and when seeing things like this from other scientists, it really sounds foolish the moment others say that folks discussing it "don't love science" - other scientists in prominent places have already said our solar system once had two suns and that's a basic.
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Not sure what you're trying to say here. My comment was that a binary star system will be smaller than a whole galaxy. Are you disagreeing?
Show me any galaxy with these billions of stars in the arms that are lighting it up???? Every one you show me will be lit up by ONLY the central star.....

I’m convinced astronomers don’t really understand what they call a galaxy at all.... nor a solar system.....
 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Glad for the review and when seeing things like this from other scientists, it really sounds foolish the moment others say that folks discussing it "don't love science" - other scientists in prominent places have already said our solar system once had two suns and that's a basic.
And hence the misconception that the lesser light that ruled the night was the moon, when in fact it had nothing to do with the moon....
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,196
9,203
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Show me any galaxy with these billions of stars in the arms that are lighting it up???? Every one you show me will be lit up by ONLY the central star.....

I’m convinced astronomers don’t really understand what they call a galaxy at all.... nor a solar system.....

Our own galaxy is this way: with just your eyes on a clear dark night in a dark area you can see about 2,500 stars (about half of all the naked eye visible stars at one time). As you use a telescope you see more. As your telescope gets bigger, you see even more. As the telescope gets huge, even more.

At about 23 seconds into this video, you see the technique currently being used to map these stars in surveying, into a huge map of the sky:

Actually assembling a huge number of photos together, over time.

You don't have to have a viewpoint of what a galaxy is in order to systematically photograph the entire sky and put it together into a map:

 
Upvote 0

Justatruthseeker

Newbie
Site Supporter
Jun 4, 2013
10,132
996
Tulsa, OK USA
✟155,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Politics
US-Others
Our own galaxy is this way: with just your eyes on a clear dark night in a dark area you can see about 2,500 stars (about half of all the naked eye visible stars at one time). As you use a telescope you see more. As your telescope gets bigger, you see even more. As the telescope gets huge, even more.

At about 23 seconds into this video, you see the technique currently being used to map these stars in surveying, into a huge map of the sky:

Actually assembling a huge number of photos together, over time.

You don't have to have a viewpoint of what a galaxy is in order to systematically photograph the entire sky and put it together into a map:

Oh I agree they have inaccurately mapped the distances to objects in what they call our galaxy.....

They do not use absolute parallax, but relative parallax which can give erroneous measurements off by 1000’s. Ask yourself why 25% of all relative parallax measurements are negative? Because the objects measured are further than what they believe to be background stars.

This is the claimed center of our galaxy.
DEBA9066-8BB1-4E90-91CB-2CEED94A78E0.jpeg

Do you see 10,000 suns????

I mean really, do these look like stars to you?

ABDA4D10-A2C8-49BE-9DB3-6AE34D7DCE3F.jpeg

Or in reality do they look as if they are reflecting light cast on them???? These are the same objects they claim are stars in your video. The reality does not match the claim....

So yes, I certainly think they are mapping objects, just not what they claim them to be in their ill-conceived theories....
 
Upvote 0

Halbhh

Everything You say is Life to me
Site Supporter
Mar 17, 2015
17,196
9,203
catholic -- embracing all Christians
✟1,158,922.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
. Ask yourself why 25% of all relative parallax measurements are negative?
I wondered about and investigated negative parallax. I've always been competent at math and logic and noticing details and noticing errors and contradictions, and I wanted to know precisely how there can be 'negative parallax'.

First, what is parallax exactly? It's only a simple effect you can see in a few seconds of your time --

You can test Parallax youself, right now, easily --
1) Stand and look out a window, and notice nearer objects (the window frame or something tall in your yard like a tree trunk) and also the more distant background of further away objects (such as houses much further away). See how the near object lines up in the background, aligned to some more distant things....

2) Now move yourself sideways several inches or a foot, and notice how the nearby objects appear to shift against the background of more distant objects.

That shift is the parallax shift.

Parallax can be used to caluculate distance to nearby stars with only trigometry alone, and works because the Earth moves -- orbits the sun during 12 months. We are seeing the apparent shift of nearby stars vs the distant background of more distant stars due to the Earth itself orbiting the sun. As we on Earth, the observer, move in our orbit around the sun, we will be roughly 186 million miles apart (the diameter of Earth's orbit) 6 months in time as the point from which we observe stars.

Because we observe from these different points, close stars appear to shift vs far away stars.

That's "parallax" -- it's only geometry, and trigonometry tells us if we know one side and 2 angles in any triangle, the other sides are then fixed (fixed distances), and easy to calculate with trigonometry.

The measurements of the apparent location of the nearby star(s) vs the further away background stars gives us 2 angles, when you draw it out on paper, and with 1 side and 2 angles, the triangle distance is set.

To measure parallax distance, we need to also figure out the proper motion of the star itself since it and our own sun are also both moving at constant velocities. We can with several observations calculate what part of the shifting position is the consistent part due to parallax shift alone.

How does a significant "negative parallax" (bigger than the margin of error due to telescope sensitivity) arise?

It happens when the nearer star is actually one of a cluster of many stars.

Then it's not just one star that is near and shifting against many background stars, but instead the opposite -- the many stars in the field of view are mostly the nearby cluster, and only the brightest stars in the background are of comparable apparent brightness, so....

So, those one or only few distant background stars that are so bright are not the neaby stars, but the background. Therefore those one or few background stars are the ones that appear to shift, vs the nearby cluster of many stars, and of course they shift in the opposite direction we normally see in parallax shift, since they are the more distant stars.

To say it again, in this instance of a nearby cluster, most of the stars in the field of view are actually the close ones, so the only star(s) that shift are actually the distant background, thus the shift happens in the opposite direction than normal.

That's "negative parallax". (In some cases, 'negative parallax' can also happen is when the observed star is a close pair/double star (for instance if astronomers can't correctly account for their orbital movement)) -- 1943AnDea...4....1L Page 1
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,057
✟326,742.00
Faith
Atheist
I’m convinced astronomers don’t really understand what they call a galaxy at all.... nor a solar system.....
Given the poor understanding of science demonstrated in your earlier posts, from the fundamentals of geometry to the principles of special relativity, it's really no surprise.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums