home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
No Fragments Archive 10: Diskmags
/
nf_archive_10.iso
/
MAGS
/
STEN
/
STEN15.MSA
/
NEWS.TXT
/
NEMESIS.ASC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
2010-04-21
|
34KB
|
660 lines
∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙
∙ ∙
∙ NEMESIS, COMPANION OF THE SUN ∙
∙ ∙
∙ by Zac Bishrey ∙
∙ ∙
∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙°∙
In the early 1950's (the late) Dutch astronomer Jan H. Oort of Leiden
University in Holland, suggested that a "cloud" of comets and debris was
left over after the formation of the Sun and planets from the primordial
cloud of gas, dust and debris; and that this "comet cloud" is circling the
Sun at some distance beyond the outer planets of the solar system.
Jan Oort's "comet cloud" (corrupted for no good reason at all to the ugly
name of "Kuiper's Plenetesimal Belt" !), has now been accepted by
astronomers and cosmologists as being the source of the comets which
depart from their original circular orbit within the "cloud", and plunge
into the Sun, or miss the Sun to describe elongated elliptical orbits
around the Sun, when (as has been proposed) a passing star disturbs the
cloud of comets, planetoids, and debris, and retards the ones nearest to
it into these tighter orbits with which we are familiar.
The only means available at the moment for determining the size of Oort's
"comet cloud", is to use the orbits of long period comets as indicators.
Several comets are observed to have parabolic or hyperbolic orbits, which
means that they are on their way out of the solar system altogether, and
cannot be used as a guide to the outer diameter of the "comet cloud".
But of more than 1000 comets observed to-date, calculations of the period
of more than 30 of them show their osculating periods (ie the periods that
these orbits would take if they were not disturbed by any planets etc), to
be between 1000 and 10,000 years; therefore, the major axis of their
orbits would be between 100 and 464 AU (astronomical units) respectively.
One of these long period comets, known as Coggia's comet, has the longest
known orbit, and may be useful in giving us something to work with.
Without perturbation by other planets, the period of this comet in its
orbit around the Sun would be 13,700 years.
If we assume that Coggia's comet was orbiting at or near the outer edge of
the "comet cloud" before it was disturbed by the gravitational influence
of an external body, then the outer diameter of Oort's "comet cloud" would
be about 1142 AU.
This is based on the calculated major axis of the the elliptical orbit of
this comet, which works out as 572 AU.
(Note: the calculation is given in appendix 1 at the end of this file)
Since Coggia's comet at perihelion (nearest point in its orbit to the Sun)
passes close to the orbit of the earth, it can be assumed that its major
axis minus the radius of the orbit of the earth (ie the astronomical unit)
may well represent the outer radius of Oort's "comet cloud".
That would make the outer edge of the "cloud" about 571 AU from the Sun,
that is to say 571 times further away from the Sun than the earth, or
about 15-20 times further away from the Sun than the known outer planets
of the solar system.
The inside diameter of Oort's "comet cloud" however, is more difficult to
work out, as it is not possible to use the shorter period comets (Halley,
Faye, Biela, De Vico, Encke, Brosen, Morehouse, Donati etc), whose orbits
lie within, or not far outside, the orbits of the outer planets, to give
any clue as to the lower limit of Oort's "comet cloud", because it is very
likely that the original orbits of these comets as they plunged towards
the Sun from the "comet cloud" were greatly disturbed by the action of the
giant planets (particularly Jupiter), pulling them inwards into shorter
orbits around the Sun.
- - - - - -
If we digress a little and study the orbit of Pluto with its moon (or
companion) Charon, we find that it is highly inclined to the ecliptic (by
17 degrees and 18 minutes), and that during part of Pluto's motion around
the Sun it moves inside the orbit of the outer planet Neptune.
This degree of inclination of the plane of its orbit is very unlike the
rest of the regular planets in the solar system whose planes of orbit lie
within very few degrees from the ecliptic, with the exception (again) of
the special case of Mercury whose orbit inclines at about 7 degrees.
The other peculiarity of Pluto and Charon is their size, Pluto being
about the size of our moon, and Charon is about half the size of Pluto;
therefore, it seems likely that these bodies are not proper members of the
original planetary family, but may well have been planetoids in the "comet
cloud" before their orbit was disturbed by an outer force, or pulled
inward into a lower and highly inclined orbit by the gravitational pull of
Neptune or by the influence of some other as yet undiscovered giant planet
beyond the orbits of Neptune and Pluto.
Yet another peculiarity of Pluto is that it deviates greatly from the
expected position of the next planet after Neptune according to Bode's Law
which has been successful in predicting with some degree of accuracy the
positions of the planets (considering the complex inter-planetary
influences), including the position of the asteroid belt, which is
generally agreed that the planetoids and rocks and debris in that belt
would have formed a small planet had the disrupting tidal influence of the
nearby giant planet Jupiter been absent.
According to Bode's Law, which is not in fact a physical law but an
empirical formula based on observation (see appendix 3 at the end), the
next planet after Neptune should be orbiting the Sun at about 77 AU.
No one, so far, has been able to work out if Bode's empirical formula has
any scientific basis, or that it is simply a freak coincidence.
According to "ZB's Law" (which came about whilst jiggering with log/linear
graph paper, a pencil and a TI-59 programmable calculator, during a moment
of idleness !) the orbit of such a planet should be about 56 AU.
Since ZB doesn't belive in coincidences, the distribution of the moons of
the giant planets were similarly plotted, with the frustrating result that
they also seem to obey an empirical rule of distribution, a scaled down
version of Bode's Law ! Further work continues, to discover if a universal
formula can be deduced from these observations...
At any rate, Pluto's mean distance from the Sun does not conform to either
Bode's Law or ZB's formula, as it is only a little over 39 AU.
So, considering the sizes of Pluto and Charon, and their highly inclined
orbit, and their non-compliance with the anticipated position of the next
planet in the solar system after Neptune, Pluto does not seem to fit into
the the planetary system as a proper planet in its own right, but may have
been together with Charon, planetoids orbiting originally within Oort's
"comet cloud", before they were pulled into their present peculiar orbit,
by some, as yet unknown, external force.
- - - - - -
Another small comet or planetoid (much less than 200 miles in diameter),
which was discovered recently and known as "1992 QB1", orbits the Sun at a
distance of about 44 AU in about 296 years.
This puts the orbit of this planetoid just outside Pluto's orbit, but
still not far enough to be associated with the position where the next
proper planetary body ought to be.
1992 QB1 may well have originated from an orbit in the "comet cloud" close
to that of Pluto and its moon Charon, and came into its present position
under the same gravitational influence that affected these two.
If we assume that the inner diameter of the "comet cloud" is not too far
(by astronomical standards) from the empirical position of the next
planet, then it seems that the inner diameter of the "comet cloud" may
well be of the order of 50-60 AU (ZB) or 70-80 AU (Bode), i.e. not far
from the known outer edges of the planetary system.
At this distance a sizeable planet may yet be discovered, a planet which
is suspected of being responsible for the observed perturbation on the
orbit of Neptune.
This mysterious perturbation cannot be attributed to Pluto because Pluto's
mass is much too small to exert any such influence on a giant planet like
Neptune, nor is it due to Uranus, because the influence of this planet on
the orbit of Neptune is already established.
This leads to the conclusion that the perturbation must be due to the
gravitational influence of another giant planet, yet to be discovered.
Putting all these sparse bits of information together it seems that Oort's
"comet cloud" is a thin but broad disk of comets, rocks, dust, and debris,
about 400 AU wide, rotating around the Sun in the plane of the ecliptic.
A disk of debris whose collective mass (together with any hydrogen and
other light gases which have escaped from the Sun's gravitational pull
altogether, may well be of the order of seven times the total mass of the
observable planets in the solar system.
This is based on the stellar mechanics and the size of the primordial
cloud of gas and debris (originally a blob of about ten million million
miles across) which formed the Sun, then the planets from the material
streaming out of the Sun as its spin increased prgressively and in inverse
proportion to its shrinking diameter. The spin of the Sun around its axis
(the solar day), however, should be about two revolutions in 24 hours,
whereas the solar day is about one revolution in about fifty times that
period. An apparent loss of angular momentum.
Since angular momentum cannot be destroyed, we are led to the inescapable
conclusion that the angular momentum "lost" by the Sun, must have been
gained in the process of pushing out the total mass of the planets and
Oort's cloud of comets and debris, to their present positions.
Oort's "comet cloud" may be compared to something similar to the rings of
Saturn (which is the disk of moonlets, rocks, dust, and debris, orbiting
around that planet); but on a vastly larger scale.
(Note: A PC3 file giving some idea of the position - not to scale - of the
"comet cloud" in the solar system, is enclosed on this floppy disk.)
< Select 'Load Picture' from the drop-down menu and load NEMESIS.PI3 >
Oort's proposition of a "comet cloud" is logical enough to accept, but the
suggestion that the disturbance of the "comet cloud" is the result of a
random passage or chance encounter with an itinerant star which may or may
not occur once in the lifetime of the solar system, though not impossible,
is extremely unlikely and very very difficult to accept.
Close encounters between stars are extremely rare; therefore, the
suggestion that the disturbance of the "comet cloud" is caused by a chance
encounter, is not credible, and cannot explain the regular geological
changes on earth, which seem to be spaced out at multiples of a relatively
short period of time (by astronomical standards).
Most of these changes are accompanied by catastrophic upheavals on earth,
such as the demise of whole species of fauna, dinosaurs, forests of giant
ferns (when the coal seams were laid down), sudden outpourings of basalt
lava all over the planet, and periodic violent foldings of alpine and
other mountain chains; the kind of upheaval that one might expect from
violent bombardment of the earth by large and heavy objects.
A look at any airless and waterless member of the solar system, such as
the Moon or Mercury or the moons around the planets, whose surfaces have
not been smoothed out and weathered by wind and rain, gives some idea of
the effect of such bombardments.
To demonstrate the periodicity of geological discontinuities, the advent
of geological eras, epochs, periods, and divisions, were listed in
chronological order (more recent first - see below), then using a computer
to calculate some factor for a common period, and reiterating the
calculations a number of times to obtain a standard deviation of the mean
approaching as near zero as possible, a figure of 13.11 million years
emerges as a common multiplier for all the geological periods; multiples
of this factor lie within the accuracy claimed for these periods.
This suggests that a "shower" of comets, meteorites, and other pieces of
rock and debris, must have struck the earth at these regular periods to
cause havoc on the face of the earth and force geological changes.
A common-or-garden comet, asteroid, moonlet, or planetoid is a large piece
of rock, ice, dust, and frozen gas.
Halley's comet, for example, is a cleft potato-shaped piece of junk about
11-12 miles long "pole-pole" by about 7-8 miles wide at its "equator", and
covered with layers of dust and frozen gas. A sizeable piece of debris as
comets go, about the size of a moderate sized mountain, weighing something
in the region of about 3 billion tons.
The main bodies of comets come in a wide range of sizes varying between 1
and 200 miles, whilst meteorites are very much smaller than that, though
they may be composed of very much similar materials, so whether they are
one or the other is a matter of definition depending on their size and the
trajectories or orbits they describe.
It is proposed here that the effect on the earth from encounters at
various times in the past with the larger pieces of debris from a comet
shower may be the Gulf of Mexico, Eastern Caribbean, Western Caribbean,
Irish Sea, Gulf of Siam, Yellow Sea, Bay of Naples, Hudson Bay, James Bay,
Sea of Japan, Bay of Biscay, Lake Victoria, Lake Tana in Ethiopia, Sea of
Aral, Lake Ladoga, Lake Uvs-Nuur in Russia, Lake Ozero-Khanka in Siberia,
Korea Bay, Gulf of Chihli off China, Gulf of Taranto at the heel of Italy,
Lake Taupo in New Zealand, Gulf of Carpentaria in North Australia, and
great many others, including the well known Malha crater in the Sudan, the
famous crater in Arizona, and the not so well known "rings" or craters in
the western area (and off the coast) of the Carolinas.
All these depressions show features of impact craters. Some of these bays
and small seas make coastline matching and continuity very difficult when
the continents are projected backwards, to the time when they were all
together as one very large land mass some 200 million years ago, adding
further to the probability that they were features added to the landscape
at various times after the formation of the earth crust, but a study of
the ratio between their depths and diameter (for which there is a very
close relationship if caused by release of energy from impact), and a
further study of any magnetic irregularities within their boundaries, is
essential to settle this point one way or the other.
If we accept that the regular changes of geological periods are indicative
of regular bombardments caused by the disturbance of the "comet cloud",
then it must be fairly obvious that SOMETHING is disturbing the "cloud".
This disturbance cannot be attributed to an itinerant body, like another
star, which just happens to be passing near the Sun. The distances between
the stars and their distribution in space, and the nature of the rotation
of our galaxy rules this out.
Indeed, the regularity of the disturbance strongly suggests that a massive
body is orbiting our Sun at regular intervals, and forming with the Sun a
binary system. Our Sun being very much the senior partner.
Binary star systems are, of course, very common in the galaxy, and seem to
come about at the time when the stars condense into existence from the
interstellar gas and from the debris thrown out by super-nova explosions,
with some of this gas and material left over to condense into planets etc.
But the companion to our Sun cannot, obviously, be as large as the Sun, or
even closely approximating to the Sun's mass, otherwise its mass would
have initiated nuclear fusion (like our Sun) and we would be observing two
suns in the sky instead of just the one.
On the other hand, this companion is unlikely to be a very small body (by
astronomical standards) smaller than, say, Jupiter, which although it is
318 times more massive than the earth, it is only 1/1047th the mass of the
Sun (though this cannot be ruled out altogether).
Nor can this companion (almost regardless of its size, up to the point
where it would ignite as a sun in its own right) be orbiting our Sun at a
great distance at perihelion, away from the outer fringe of the "comet
cloud", or be orbiting the Sun in a circular orbit; because such motions
would not disturb the cloud of comets and other debris in the cloud, since
in the former case, the gravitational attraction would be too small to
disturb the cloud to any significant degree, and in the latter case, the
distrubance would be irregular and cannot, therefore, explain the regular
disturbance of the "comet cloud".
It must be a sizeable body certainly but not massive enough or near enough
to the Sun in its orbit at the moment to be detected by our instruments.
In order for this body to be in a position to disturb the "comet cloud" it
must be orbiting the Sun in an elongated elliptical orbit which brings it
close enough to the vicinity of the Sun, at perihelion.
A body which may be called Nemesis, for want of a more apt name...
A body of gas and dust not large enough to initiate nuclear fusion but
massive enough to disturb the "comet cloud", and completes an orbit around
the Sun in 13.11 million years, which, while it is approaching perihelion,
its gravitational force retards the nearest comets and debris to it in the
"comet cloud", thus forcing a shower of them onto the Sun, or into
elongated orbits around the Sun, striking whatever planets that happen to
be in the way of this shower of debris.
Two calculations for the orbit of "Nemesis" are given in appendix 2 at the
end of this file.
The first calculation is for a body one third the size of the Sun; this
is unlikely but is included here to determine the outer limit the orbit of
such a companion.
The other calculation is for a body whose mass is very small compared to
that of the Sun, though it may be considerably more massive than Jupiter;
this is the more likely case.
It is rather unfortunate that the orbit of the earth around the Sun takes
our planet into the path of the shower of comets falling towards the Sun,
and consequently our earth, at regular intervals (about every 13 million
years), is bombarded by the rocks and debris from this shower, causing the
tectonic plates to jerk, creating havoc, erupting volcanoes, extinguishing
any life on the surface of the planet, and giving the geologists a chance
to name new eras after their favourite tribes, cities, and counties...
It seems, however, that not all of Nemesis' visits resulted in the same
degree of geological disturbance and ecological catastrophes.
Many encounters seem to have had minimal geological disturbance, and many
geological changes do not seem to be associated with Nemesis' periods.
Three possible reasons (there may be others) are offered:
a) On the occasions when the resulting "comet shower" was minimal,
Nemesis may, at its perihelion, have been passing a sparsely populated
part of the "comet cloud", resulting in a small shower of comets.
b) The earth, on such occasions when geological changes were minimal, may
have been in the part of its orbit when it was farthest away from the
traffic of comets at its worst, and only passed through the path of
the "comet shower" after the larger pieces of debris had already
fallen onto the Sun, or were on their outward leg of their new orbits
away from the vicinity of the earth.
c) Some geological changes would occur purely as a result of the normal
movement of the tectonic plates due to eddying of the molten magma,
which would happen whether there were any meteoric impacts or not.
- - - - - -
A list of the geological times are listed below together with the starting
dates, and durations. The synchronised shower-hits are marked with (*).
Earth Geological periods:
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Era Epoch Period Division Start Duration
M.years M.years
Hit
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯
(Nemesis next visit) 04.00 AD ?
Quaternary Holocene 00.01 BC
Neogene Pleistocene 02
Tertiary Pliocene 07 6
(Renewed earth crust movement, especially west of the Americas)
(Nemesis last visit) 13.11 *
(Alpine Orogeny - folding of the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, etc)
Miocene 26 6 *
Palaeogene Oligocene Chattian 32 6
Rupelian 35 3
Lattorfian 38 3
(Elevation of the British Isles)
(Basalt lava flows in the Arabian and Abyssinian plateaux)
Eocine Bartonian 39 1 *
Lutatian 45 6
(Laramide movements)
(Widespread basalt lava flows in Asia, America, Europe, and the Atlantic)
Ypresian 52 7 *
Palaeocene Sparnacian 56 4
Thanetian 59 3
Danian 64 5
(Elevation of the British Isles)
(Demise of the Dinosaurs)
(Alpine Orogeny - folding of the Alps etc)
(Block faulting in the Indian Ocean)
Messozoic Cretaceous Upper Maastrichtian 65 1 *
¯¯¯¯¯ Campanian 74 8
(Cenomanian Transgression)
Santonian 78 4 *
Coniacian 85 7
Turonian 92 7 *
Cenomanian 96 4
Cretaceous Lower Albian 105 9 *
¯¯¯¯¯ Aptian 108 3
Barremian 115 8
Hauterivian 118 3 *
Valanginian 125 7
(Wide spread basalt lava flows)
Ryazanian 135 10 *
(Elevation of the British Isles)
Jurassic Upper Portlandian 144 9 *
¯¯¯¯¯ Kimmeridgian 150 6
Oxfordian 154 4
Callovian 157 3 *
Jurassic Middle Bathonian 164 7
¯¯¯¯¯¯ Bajocian 170 6 *
Jurassic Lower Toarcian 176 6
¯¯¯¯¯
(Elevation of the British Isles)
Pliensbachian 183 7 *
Sinemurian 186 3
Hettangian 195 9
(Rhetic marine transgression)
(Separation of the Tectonic Plates)
Triassic Upper Rhaetian 196 1 *
¯¯¯¯¯ Norian 203 7
(Denudation of Britain to a flat low-lying desert)
Carnian 210 7 *
Triassic Middle Ladinian 215 5
¯¯¯¯¯¯ Anisian 223 8 *
Triassic Lower Scythian 225 2
¯¯¯¯¯
(Demise of the Trilobites)
Palaeozoic Permian Upper Tatarian 236 11 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Variscan Armorican Orogeny)
Kazanian 250 14 *
(Rapid denudation of mountain chains in Britain)
Permian Lower Kungurian 262 12 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Alpine Orogeny - folding of the Alps)
Artinskian 275 13 *
Sakmarian 280 5
(Faulting and separation of the coal fields)
(Extinction of Carboniferous genera)
Carboniferous Upper Stephanian 288 8 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Lava flows in the Scottish Midland Valley)
Westphalian 300 12 *
Namurian 315 15 *
(Lava flows in Derbyshire)
Carboniferous Lower Visean 327 12 *
¯¯¯¯¯ Tournaisian 340 13
(Marine transgression into Britain from the south)
Devonian Upper Frammenian 341 1 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Caledonian Orogeny - Extensive lava flows in the Scottish Midland Valley)
Frasnian 354 13 *
(Renewed uplift in Scotland)
Devonian Middle Givetian 367 13 *
¯¯¯¯¯¯ Eifelian 370 13 *
Devonian Lower Emsian 375 5
¯¯¯¯¯
(Widespread igneous activity)
Siegenian 380 5 *
Gedinnian 390 10
(Demise of the Graptolites)
Silurian Upper Ludlovian 393 3 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Intrusion of the Scottish newer granites)
Wenlockian 406 13 *
(Alpine Orogeny - folding of the Alps)
Silurian Lower Llandoverian 420 14 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Silting up of the Lower Paleozoic Geosyncline)
Ordovician Upper Ashgillian 433 13 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Mountain folding in Britain)
Caradocian 445 12 *
(Taconic movements in North America)
Ordovician Lower Llandeilian 458 13 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Submarine volcanic activity in the British area)
Llanvirnian 471 13 *
(Subaerial volcanic activity in the British area)
Arenigian 484 13 *
Tremadocian 500 16 *
(Sinking of the sea floor)
Cambrian Upper 510 10 *
¯¯¯¯¯ 525 15 *
(Initiation of Lower Paleozoic Geosyncline)
Cambrian Middle 540 15 *
¯¯¯¯¯¯
(Main volcanic activity in Wales)
550 10 *
(Marine transgression in Britain)
Cambrian Lower 565 15 *
¯¯¯¯¯
(Alpine Orogeny - folding of the Alps)
Pre-Cambrian Vendian Late Proterzoic 570-900 330 *
¯¯¯¯
(Beyond this point back in time, the divisions in the pre-phanerzoic ages
are too vague to allow any sensible calculations of the period of Nemesis)
Pre-Phanerozoic Algonkian
Raphean Middle Proterzoic 900-1600 700
¯¯¯¯¯¯
Aphebian Early Proterzoic 1600-2500 900
¯¯¯¯¯
Archaean Late Archeon 2500-2900 400
¯¯¯¯
(Signs of some water erosion - after cooling down of the earth's crust)
Hadean 3900-4500 600
(Earth too hot for water to exist as liquid)
Formation of the Earth and the planetary system 4700
- - - - - -
(Ages are taken from The Phanerozoic Time Scale - Geol. Soc. London 1964)
- - - - - -
Appendix 1: Orbit of Coggia's comet
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
If:
d = major axis of Coggia's orbit (cm)
p = period (s) = 13700 * (365.25636*24*60*60) = 4.324 * 10^11
M = mass of the Sun (g) = 1.98977 * 10^33
And:
d^3 / p^2 = 1.69 * 10^-9 * M
Note: The figure of (1.69) is a derived constant in order to adapt the
universal formula to the units used.
Then:
d = (1.69*10^-9*1.98977*10^33*(4.324*10^11)^2)^1/3
= 8.567 * 10^15 cm
= 8.567 * 10^10 km
= 572 AU
- - - - - -
Appendix 2: Nemesis
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1. Bbinary-star companion of our Sun)
If (m) is the mass of Nemesis being 1/3 the mass of the Sun (M) and;
a = the major axis of the orbit of Nemesis (aphelion to perihelion)
b = the minor axis of the orbit of Nemesis
d = mean diameter = (a + b) / 2 cm
G = Universal Constant of Gravitation = 6.67 * 10^-8 cm^3/g/sec^2
M = the mass of the Sun = 1.98977 * 10^33 g
m = M/3 = 0.66326 * 10^33 g
T = Nemesis period = 13.11 million years = 4.13709 * 10^14 s
And:
M + m = 2.65303 * 10^33 = (4 π / G) * (d^3 / T^2)
Then:
d = (2.65303 * 10^33 * 6.67 * 10^-8 * (4.13709 * 10^14)^2)^1/3
= 9.15445 * 10^17 cm
= 61193 AU
or nearly 1 LY (light year)
2. If the mass of Nemesis is very small compared to that of the Sun, as
seems likely to be the case;
Then:
The centre of rotation of the binary system (the common centre of gravity
of the system) would be close to the centre of gravity of the Sun;
Therefore:
d = ((13110000)^2)^1/3
= 55599 AU
or about .88 LY
Note: 1 AU (Astronomical Unit) = 149,600,000 kilometers
(about 93 million miles)
1 LY (Light Year) = 9,460,000,000,000 kilometers
(about 5.9 million million miles)
= 63,235 AU
- - - - - -
Appendix 3: Planets' distances (d) from the Sun in AU:
Bode's Law: a series of 4s added to multiples of 3 then divide by 10
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
ZB's "Law": d = π (log^-1 ((n-5)/4))
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
n Planet Bode Z B Actual
¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯
1 Mercury 0.4 0.3 0.38
2 Venus 0.7 0.6 0.72
3 Earth 1.0 1.0 1.00
4 Mars 1.6 1.7 1.52
5 Asteroids (mean) 2.8 3.1 3.10
6 Jupiter 5.2 5.5 5.20
7 Saturn 10.0 9.9 9.54
8 Uranus 19.6 17.7 19.19
9 Neptune 38.8 31.4 30.07
Pluto 39.52
10 Planet X (?) 77.2 56.8 ??.??
- - - - - -
Footnote: The calculations and conclusions about a connection between the
regular periodic rhythm of geological changes, and the orbit and
period of a companion to the Sun (i.e. Nemesis), were sent to
Ms Heather Couper in 1983 for her valued opinion; she was then
President of the BAA (British Astronomical Association).
Her reply was that she found the findings interesting enough for
her to keep an open mind on the subject. (thanks a lot)
More recently, the question of the demise of the dinosaurs has
re-kindled interest (I wonder why !) in the various theories
about their abrupt extinction, ranging from global warming, to
starvation, to rodents eating their eggs, etc etc...
You can accept or reject what you like of course, but you should
hang on to this disk. One day you may be able to tell your
children that you saw the real answer first, in STEN...
ZB
~~~~~eof~~~~~
