a star dubbed Nemesis

Which is now a black hole which we have found evidence for, aka the hunt for "planet 9"

All is a big word to describe a chaotic system. 'nuff said

what's/the/idea?collapsing/cloud/produces/separate/eddies?Just/two?Not/intuitively/obvious/to/me.Help?

Given that Jupiter's formation was recently constrained to 'very soon' after the Sun's self-build went large, does this mean Jupiter is technically the ultimate 'Little Ender' ?? Easy to say in cases of 'Brown Dwarfs', but Jupiter didn't make that grade, either...

Nik_2213:

Jupiter is technically the ultimate 'Little Ender' ??

"Evidence that Jupiter is the oldest planet in the solar system" Jun 13, 2017 12
https://phys.org/...lar.html

Very interesting finding and explains why 80 per cent of stars are in a binary system. For some reason those who want to claim that life and even intelligent life is abundant in the Galaxy never seem to take this into account. Our Sun is always described as a typical star but if it's in the clear minority of non binary stars then it cannot be typical in the sense that it is used, when talking about life getting under way.

Ultra tiny brown dwarf, Mass, Orbital parameters here:

http://www.barry....led.html
SUMMARY: VULCAN'S NEW ORBITAL PARAMETERS

Aph./Peri 447.6.134.8 AU. Three orbital parameters verified. Its orbital inclination is the same as one of the two proposed for Planet Nine. we called it Vulcan when we discovered it in 2002.

Ultra tiny brown dwarf, Mass, Orbital parameters here:

http://www.barry....led.html
VULCAN REVEALED
A Dangerous New Jovian Sized Body In Our Solar System

Its orbital inclination is the same as one of the two proposed for Planet Nine

'And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.' Qur'an Verse (51:49)

I wonder if jupiter is the sibling mass.

Perhaps Pluto was the tiny Nemesis?

"New evidence that all stars are born in pairs"
Such an absolute and simplistic statement cannot be true.

"The new assertion is based on a radio survey of a giant molecular cloud filled with recently formed stars in the constellation Perseus, and a mathematical model that can explain the Perseus observations only if all sunlike stars are born with a companion."

Keep on working...

OsmanArslan:

'And all things We have created by pairs, that haply ye may reflect.' Qur'an Verse (51:49)

The idea of duality of all existence goes back to at latest Classical Egypt:
http://escholarsh...b#page-3

like Cain and Ebel (had twin sisters, Cain was a triplet),
also the sons of Jacob (himself a twin as were Rachel and Leah) had twin sisters according to at least some.
according to those who hold BaKol is a daughter of Abraham and Sarah, could she be a twin of Yitzchak?

The relatively high number of double stars has long been a tell of ID and also YeC friendly amongst creation science astro-physicists.
that many/most/all were born that way is very SPIRAL friendly as per SPIRAL the proto-stars formed as early as creation week day one.
in the case of identical twins humans think of our analogy of a single cell dividing into two and twins from those two.
now in the case of stars think of the initial singularity.
now think of the RCCF-SPIRAL references in Talmud and RambaN of that splitting into two, the inner and the outer. the outer includes the stars w/ the exception of the Sun.
now think of that outer continuing to divide x times - to be continued

now think of that outer with each cell (star) continuing to divide x times.
(just like not each snow flake is alike, and not each oak tree even if developed from acorns from the same parent tree, each twin star need not be identical.)
Allow for occasional triplet, quadruplet, or single.. like chestnuts :).
Nearest twin would most often be closer to each other, than cousins.. thus groups of proto galaxy clusters could have also predated the cosmic inflation cosmic expansion event as hypothesized in SPIRAL ..
reference: SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and cosmology model

Pearlman_CTA:

like Cain and Ebel (had twin sisters, Cain was a triplet)

What is this superstition doing in a science discussion? It's gibberish anyway: Triplets aren't born in pairs.

reference link herein for prior two posts on topic of double stars:
SPIRAL vs SCM infographic: www.researchgate....17415683

Hi ES
One common designer/ creator. Is the most basic foundation for understanding science in context.
often in science we use analogies between two distinct natural phenomena observations.
you may not recognize it as science as you have never been taught/considered it (SPIRAL and RCCF) fairly
With stars while most may be twins, yet how do you preclude any triplets..?
also a triplet could be a pair plus a single
the single could have started as part of a pair..

Pearlman_CTA:

One common designer/ creator. Is the most basic foundation for understanding science in context.

No it is not science. It is superstition and/or gibberish, not science. This site is for posts about science.

There are many sites where you can post that kind of non-science where people might actually be interested in it. Post there instead.

Anda:

"New evidence that all stars are born in pairs"
Such an absolute and simplistic statement cannot be true.

Of course it could be true. "All triangles have 180 degrees", "E=mc^2" can't be true because they're "absolute and simplistic"?

Pearlman_CTA:

now think of that outer with each cell (star) continuing to divide x times.

Stars don't divide. Except maybe in some superstition (or drugged delusion) that doesn't belong on a science site. Post elsewhere.

Care: "All triangles have 180 degrees" only applies to plane geometry...

Yet direct evidence from observations has been scarce. As astronomers look at younger and younger stars, they find a greater proportion of binaries, but why is still a mystery.

And no wonder - the observations are so scarce as to be non-existent. To date no one has recorded or discovered the event of a star bursting on the scene from a cloud of gas. And had such event confirmed as the "birth" of a new star.

@FredJose.

My initial reaction to your post was to call you a dickhead. But that may be misconstrued as some kind of insult. I do not believe in insulting people on the internet.

Therefore I will say you comment is asinine. I could explain why, but that would probably be wasted effort.

Lex Talonis:

OK, so what has happened to all the old evidence

With all due respect to Drjsa_oba, you're a dickhead.

Of course it could be true. "All triangles have 180 degrees", "E=mc^2" can't be true because they're "absolute and simplistic"?

Funny thing is that the ancient Greeks worshiped mathematics because it was demonstrably true and this lasted for two thousand years until non Euclidean geometry was discovered and showed that it wasn't really as absolute as once believed. Draw a triangle on the Earth whose points are 1. The north pole and 2. at 0 degrees longitude and 3. at 90 degrees longitude and you have a triangle with 3 right angles!

someone11235813:

Of course it could be true. "All triangles have 180 degrees", "E=mc^2" can't be true because they're "absolute and simplistic"?

Funny thing is

Funny thing about "true" is that there's always going to be margins of error in human knowledge: Godel's Incompleteness Theorem explains that guarantee. Einstein's "E=mc^2" was part of the revision to Newton's "F = G((m1*m2)/r^2)". Yet each formulation is both simple and true enough to use for all contemporary intents and purposes. Likewise non-Euclidean geometry.

To reject an accurate, if never perfectly precise, description as "cannot be true" because it's absolute and "simplistic" is a cruelly ironic absolute and actually "simplistic" (not just "simple") fallacy.

@EmceeSquared, mathematics wasn't like that. Mathematics was believed to be absolutely true by definition. Like 1 plus 1 is true and always will be. We do not expect that quantum physics will not be subsumed by another better theory in 100 years just as general relativity subsumed Newton but no one saw non Euclidean geometry coming. With regards to true, I define it as 'that which *cannot* be denied. And the only thing that cannot be denied is one's own knowledge that 'I am', I exist. What that 'I' is is a matter for debate which is a separate topic.

Could this duplicity of born stars as twins imply in any way the existence of parallel universes?

Could this duplicity of born stars as twins imply in any way the existence of parallel universes?

No. It implies (primarily) gravitational mechanics.

Of course it could be true. "All triangles have 180 degrees", "E=mc^2" can't be true because they're "absolute and simplistic"?

Funny thing is that the ancient Greeks worshiped mathematics because it was demonstrably true and this lasted for two thousand years until non Euclidean geometry was discovered and showed that it wasn't really as absolute as once believed. Draw a triangle on the Earth whose points are 1. The north pole and 2. at 0 degrees longitude and 3. at 90 degrees longitude and you have a triangle with 3 right angles!

Since the N. Pole is AT 90 degrees long., all you have is a straight line. Better re-think your non-Euclidean...

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

someone11235813:

Like 1 plus 1 is true and always will be.

1 + 1 = 10 in binary. Rejecting a scientific or mathematical statement as "cannot be true" because it's "absolute and simplistic" (or rather "simple", because "simplistic" is of course a tautological reason for rejection) is fallacious.

Cool idea. But is it possible that what was supposed to be the Sun's twin got dispersed and resulted in Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus?

"all stars are born in pair":
The current census of cosmos tells us that there are more red dwarfs (earlier companions of much larger brighter stars). This means that most of the larger and brighter companions are long gone (burning faster than comparing red dwarfs). Otherwise census should have shown almost equal number of red dwarf and companion larger brighter stars. Cosmos must have been much brighter times when larger and brighter companions of these red dwarfs were around

Well this is yet another hypothesis!

e=mc^2 "1 + 1 = 10 in binary."

And your point is what? that 10 in binary is not 2? Are you now going to say 1 does not equal 1 if the second 1 was written in a different colour?

someone11235813:

And your point is what?

You posted "1 plus 1 is true", so I was just having some fun with your mistake in the binary that is used to represent "true" (and "false"). However simple the equations, they're meaningless without the context in which they're evaluated, which is hidden complexity - allowing simple equations.

Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder, and not a criterion for whether a mathematical statement is correct. I already pointed out E=mc^2 , which is both simple and absolute despite your simplistic and absolute statement that it cannot be because simplistic and absolute mathematical statements cannot be true.

Try to keep up with your own assertions. At least have a sense of humor about it when you don't.

All is a big word to describe a chaotic system