THE TYCHOS : "BINARY DEVELOPMENTS"
It is remarkable how, as I continue to delve into both past and present astronomy literature, a steady flow of old and new information keeps piling up, slowly but surely, in support of my proposed TYCHOS model. Of course, as the author of the same, I fully realize that you might suspect me of being blinded by confirmation bias - but that's ok, and I can't do anything about that. Ultimately, it is up to the objective reader to judge whether this is the case (me being biased) - or if the following "old & new" developments may concur to consolidate the TYCHOS and its fundamental principles.
One of the main contentions of the TYCHOS model is, of course, that we live in a double/binary system composed of the Sun and Mars (with Earth located at their common barycenter). I have pointed out the fact that the vast majority of the stars in our skies (85% and counting) are double / or multiple binary systems. Moreover, I have highlighted the facts that the very brightest star in our sky, Sirius, is composed of the large Sirius A and the tiny Sirius B, that the latter is 204X
smaller than its host (Sirius A) - and that Mars is [coincidentally?] also 204X
smaller than its host (our Sun). Consequently, there can be no offhand rejection (due to Mars being "too small")* of the notion that Mars is the Sun's binary companion.
*Mind you, most astronomers will tell you that - according to Newtonian computations - Sirius B (which is reckoned to be slightly smaller than Earth) must be 400,000X heavier than Earth, so that's why it can be "gravitationally bound" with the huge Sirius A. However, we can be sure that no one has ever put Sirius B on a scale to verify its weight!
Another common objection that most people will have is: "but, but... Mars is not a star, it's a planet!"
Well, no one can deny that Mars is the ONLY "planet" in our Solar System which is reddish / orange
- just like the most common celestial bodies in our universe
, i.e. the so-called red dwarfs
Hmm, wait a minute... Could Mars perhaps --- be an old (orange)
I can now hear someone objecting: "But hey, Sirius B isn't a red dwarf, it's supposed to be a WHITE dwarf!"
True, but white dwarfs are reckoned to be simply younger celestial bodies... which eventually will turn into red dwarfs :
Notoriously, many red (and brown) dwarfs are so dim that they remain invisible - even to our best telescopes. Now, if 85% of our visible stars (that we see as single points of light) are in fact double stars, could the remaining 15% possibly be (mistakenly) considered as "non-binary" due to their companions being so dim as to be undetectable - even by our current technology? At the beginning of the 20th century, this was certainly the case (see below extract from a 1908 astronomy book) - but what if our modern spectroscopic instruments haven't yet overcome this particular limitation? :
"In observations of spectroscopic binaries we do not always get a double spectrum. Indeed, if one of the components be below a certain magnitude, its spectrum will not appear at all; and so we are left in the strange uncertainty as to whether this component is merely faint or actually dark. It is, however, from the shiftings of the lines in the spectrum of the other component that we see that an orbital movement is going on, and are thus enabled to conclude that two bodies are here connected into a system, although one of these bodies resolutely refuses directly to reveal itself even to the all-conquering spectroscope."
Extract from ASTRONOMY TO-DAY, by Cecil D. Dolmage (1908) https://www.gutenberg.org/files/28570/2 ... 8570-h.htm
Consider this: the discovery of a companion of our NEARMOST STAR was announced as recently as August 2016
Proxima Centauri B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b
Then, in November 2018
, it was announced that the Barnard's star (a nearby star that moves faster than any other) also has a companion!
Barnard's star B: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star_b
If the companions of these two NEARBY stars were only detected as recently as 2016/2018, what does this tell us?
To underline the gist of my line of reasoning, let me quote a short paragraph from Chapter 1 of my TYCHOS book:
"If it eventually emerges that 100% of our visible stars are locked in binary systems, our “lonely” single-star system (as per the Copernican model), would stand out as a uniquely exceptional, one-of-a-kind cosmic anomaly
. It therefore stands to reason, from a purely statistical perspective, that our own star (the Sun) is likely to be part of a binary system."
I really don't think anyone needs a Phd in astronomy in order to understand the issue at hand... Indeed, if our Sun were to be the ONLY (non-binary) SINGLE STAR in our entire universe, it would be a most bizarre "exception to the rule"! As it is, other people have noticed that our Solar System (that is, the heliocentric one - as imagined by Copernicus) would stand out as a very strange, lone oddity in our universe. Here's from an article at Sciencealert.com (November 2018):
"Our Sun is a solitary star, all on its ownsome, which makes it something of an oddball. But there's evidence to suggest that it did have a binary twin, once upon a time. Recent research suggests that most, if not all, stars are born with a binary twin.
(We already knew the Solar System is a total weirdo. The placement of the planets appears out of whack compared to other systems, and it's missing the most common planet in the galaxy, the super-Earth.)" https://www.sciencealert.com/we-may-hav ... -twin-star
That's right folks, this quite recent research (published on Phys.org in June 2017
) submits that ALL stars are born in pairs :
The above article justly cites Pavel Kroupa's 1991 research
which basically concludes that the best "fit" for stellar mass function is that all star systems in our universe are binary.
Wow - that is pretty interesting, isn't it? If ALL
stars are born in pairs, how and why did our Sun separate from its original companion? Did our Sun get a divorce on the grounds of its partner's bad behavior? Did they split due to some perturbations / turbulences messing up their primordial, magnetic relationship? Oh, well - it happens all the time between human beings, doesn't it...
Jokes aside, if it were found that ALL the stars in our universe have a binary companion, this would have truly profound implications. I am sure that everyone of you has heard of "dark matter". It is an elusive / invisible "substance" that ALL modern astrophysicists and cosmologists are nowadays (desperately) trying to find in our universe. They actually contend that about 80% (or more) of our universe is made of this hitherto undetectable "dark matter" (or, in other words,"Mathematically Missing Matter") because the presumed, highly scattered distributions and apparently inexplicable motions of our universe's stars / celestial bodies appear to violate both Kepler's and Newton's sacrosanct "laws" - as well as their cherished "Big Bang" theory.
Here's from the Wikipedia page titled "Galaxy rotation curve" :
"Since observations of galaxy rotation do not match the distribution expected from application of Kepler's laws
, they do not match the distribution of luminous matter. This implies that spiral galaxies contain large amounts of dark matter or, in alternative, the existence of exotic physics in action on galactic scales."
"These results suggested that either Newtonian gravity does not apply universally
or that, conservatively, upwards of 50% of the mass of galaxies was contained in the relatively dark galactic halo."
Well, here's what the world's top expert in stellar analyses/ distributions, Jacobus Kapteyn, concluded many years ago (around 1920):
"...if all stars were binaries there would be no need to invoke ‘dark matter' in the Universe."
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... iverse#pf7
This is all for now, folks. More to come.