Perpendicular orbit... I haven't calculated the exact angle, but given the assumption that the twin was sighted by Flamsteed in 1680 as being near Cassiopeia A and by 1998 had moved to somewhere in Libra (so the C's suggested), that would incline the orbit to somewhere between 60-80 degrees from the ecliptic plane.

There's another calculation I wanted to do but cannot figure out.  If the twin was sighted with magnitude +6 while at distance X from the sun, then what would its magnitude be now at distance Y?

Consider the Milky Way galaxy to be a body of water. In a body of water you have two types of waves. Transverse and Longitudinal. Depending on where you are located in that body of water will determine which type of wave has the most effect.

Those particles (molecules, planets) closer to the top of the wave will experience transverse waves. Those particles deeper in the medium (the galaxy) will experience longitudinal waves. Therefore, following the maxim of "as above so below", what is possible in a medium such as water must be possible in a medium such as a galaxy and following down the scale must also be possible in a solar system. Following that logic my supposition that a twin star could possibly orbit in a fashion both elliptical and transverse to our own solar system must not only be possible but maybe even probable.

Depending on where this star passed by the Kuiper belt (either inside or outside) it could account for strange elliptical orbits or comets approaching from any direction (above, below, north, south, east, west) depending on it's angle and vector of intersection.

Now drop the whole mess in a whirlpool and you get a 3D spirograph.

See? Simple isn't it....:D

I think because of distance and its general properties Nemesis is invisible to 99.9% of the population 99.9% of the time. That's why it's so hard to find.

Inertia could account for the transverse orbiting the longitudinal couldn't it?

Am I way off here?

Think about the wandering poles and the "wobble" of the earth on its axis. Perhaps this could be pointer on where to look?

I have a telescope that I built myself, it's only an 8 inch but I also have some photographic equipment. If I was to look where might that be and what might be the best way? High infrared, low infrared? Does it really matter...:=) Maybe looking for the comets might be better if the orbit of Nemesis could be pinned down a little more precisely?

Have you considered the perpendicular elliptical orbit in your calculations?

If there is a brown dwarf companion, even if it doesn't emit light it would still be visible due to reflected light. And if that isn't possible, then surely there would come a time when we would see it transit across the face of the main sun.

What I had initially read looking into this is that a theory says the orbital pattern is held in a 'stasis' which constantly hides the other sun behind it's bright partner. The argument for the probability of which using the equally likely orbital pattern of our moon, which constantly keeps half of itself hidden from our earth-bound views.

Maybe the reason it won't reflect light is because it is dark matter. . . . I am well versed in the intricacies of dark matter - I saw an Outer Limits episode on it once . . .   

Sitchin believes that Nibiru has a 3600 year orbit and allows the Anunnaki to land on earth whenever both get close enough to each other. I don't have confidence in that particular idea, but its pieces seem to be related to factual elements, like the bit about something cosmic returning every 3600 years, or that there are alien overlords, and also that a combination of both could play into world events during our lifetimes.

There are many variations of the Planet X theme... some pretty crazy, some just incomplete or misguided, and some relatively accurate. Whatever best fits the facts, the math, and the observations should be more reliable, I would think. Lens flare is not good evidence, though

Seeing either a comet cluster or a cold dead twin requires some pretty sophisticated infrared telescopes. There are lots of brown dwars out there but not many have been catalogued just because they are so dim and thus difficult to spot. I once got some scope time at college and checked out the coordinates given by zetatalk, but found nothing there even though the sensitivity was good enough to detect what zetatalk claimed was a red dwarf. If the real thing is colder, it would be harder to see. In my opinion, the twin itself is not a threat since it never gets near enough to the inner solar system to do direct damage. However, indirectly it can cause cometary showers among other things.

According to James McCanney, and to the electric universe theory, comets induce solar flares due to their electrical charges. If comet clusters were on the approach, solar activity should have to increase.   So that's something to watch for. If solar activity keeps increasing, then that would be a possible indicator.

As for the orbit of the clusters, the C's said it's like a spirograph. That makes sense - anything that comes by and interacts with planetary fields will have it orbital direction shifted slightly, and thus over time it would trace out a spirograph pattern. But they also said the first ones would be sighted coming from the Magellanic Clouds...those are in the southern hemisphere. The only scope of the proper location and technology to perform that job was the Stromlo Observatory in Australia, the one that burned down in that freak fire. And interestingly, the observatory at Mount Lemon in the Southwestern US, which was known for being instrumental in the discoveries of some new comets these past few years, almost suffered the same fate when a freak wildfire came close to destroying it as well.

I would say that comets are a greater threat than either a Planet X or a Twin Sun, mainly because there are so damn many of them, they are positioned in the Oort cloud just waiting to be thrown inward, and geological evidence shows that comets have smacked into us before in a "shotgun pattern" that does maximum damage with least amount of cratering effects except in the most extreme cases.

Gotta love that name by the way...by inference "the slayer". Much like the Greek goddess Nemesis which is my favorite name for "Planet X".

"In Greek mythology, Nemesis was the goddess of retribution. She appears in the Theogony of Hesiod as the daughter of Nyx (the goddess of Night):

"Baneful Night bore Nemesis, too, a woe for mortals..."

Hmmm, retribution, fitting for the plague on this planet we call humans.

And Sedna?
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn6204

Both highly inclined and pretty much a puzzle for anyone who doesn't believe there's a second star on an elliptical and perpendicular path to our own.

The perpendicular path may also explain why periodic comets get thrown our way from all different directions. I believe the C's made a reference to these. Something along the line of when they come Laura asked from which direction and the reply was "will seem to come from all directions" or something to that effect.

Richard Mullerdeveloped the Nemesis theory:

Cataclysms also tend to occur in 3600 year intervals. Mark Hazelwood collected some research on that cycle in his Planet X book. The theory sketched out in the Cassiopaean transcripts is essentially a combination of both cycles - that a dark companion swings by every 27 million years and sends a comet cluster from the Oort Cloud towards the solar system. It is this cluster that establishes a 3600 year cycle and sometimes wreaks havoc. Every 27 million years brings a fresh cluster, and each cluster swings through in synchronization with the older ones. So when the comet clusters approach, they are several in number - old with new.

All I did in the PDF is plug data the C's gave into standard astrophysics equations to see if they were consistent and matched other observed facts. They were. So yeah, that scenario is plausible. I do not believe in a singular Planet X with a 3600 year orbit, especially not one which is home to the Annunaki. I think it is instead one or more comet clusters with that orbital period.

Back in the 1600s-1700s, sunspots became abnormally absent. C's claimed that the twin's approach would suppress solar flares, so there might be a connection. Interestingly, in the middle of that period, the astronomer Flamsteed catalogued a bright star that other astronomers later could not be found. Some say it was a supernova, but it might have been the dark twin getting close enough to be illuminated by the sun. The C's mentioned that the twin was currently (well, ten years ago) in the constellation Libra... according to my calculations, the angular distance between Libra and the star Flamsteed sighted matches precisely how much the twin has traveled across the sky since. The length of the sunspot absence, known as the Maunder Minimum, also correlates with  how long it would take the twin to whip halfway around the solar system and leave again.  So all that checks out.

When the twin crashes through the Oort Cloud, it drags with it a comet cluster...if the twin swung by three hundred years ago, then the new comet cluster is already on its way. I could not figure out what the time lag would be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened by 2032.

From what I think I understand, or remember hearing by one of my tutors, most stars in the visible night's sky are binary systems. They are very close together. However most of these stars individually are much much bigger than our own Sun. My tutor was doing his PhD on looking for  planets located around other star systems and the techniques used are really quite clever I think.

Anyway just my interpretation - which is also possibly completely wrong.

As far as precession being due to precession. . um.. what are you trying to say there?  The precession of the equinoxes describes the apparent motion of the galaxy relative to the earth's pole, yet it is obvious that the galaxy is not rotating around the earth. . .

The Earth is tilted at an angle of 23 degrees. As it spins, the axis running from north to south traces out a circle - very very slowly.

An explanation can be found here  http://www.geol.binghamton.edu/faculty/ … emo10.html

Note that this is a university website.....

''As it spins, the Earth behaves somewhat like a gyroscope; it wants to maintain it's orientation (it is difficult to change it's direction). A bicycle wheel (particularly one with a loaded rim) is excellent as a demonstration gyroscope, although small toy gyroscopes work also. If we apply a torque to the gyroscope (balance the spinning bicycle wheel on one hand, and pull a string attached to top axle with the other), it's axis of rotation does not move toward you (the direction you are pulling), but perpendicular to that so that the axis traces out a circle. This is called precession. Another simple example of precession is the spinning of a top; because of variations in density of the top, its axis of rotation traces out a circle. [Note: in Physics labs, this demonstration is often done by hanging the bicycle wheel from the string, with its axis horizontal. This works well, but I think keeping the spinning axis vertical helps the students to visualize the Earth's coordinate system.]

We can see that the Earth's axis of rotation precesses, since we know that the North Star (Polaris) was not aligned with the rotational pole in the past (it wasn't the "North Star"), and appears to be moving away from that position, so that it won't be aligned in the future. By observing the apparent movement of the stars with respect to the rotational axis, we can determine that Earth's period of precession is almost 25,735 years (it will take 25,735 years for Polaris to become the North Star once again).

The quantity that relates the rate of precession to the amount of torque applied is the moment of inertia. The moment of inertia is related to the distribution of mass about the axis of rotation. If the mass is concentrated near the axis, the moment of inertia will be small, but if the mass is distributed outward, the moment of inertia will be large. For a constant torque, a small moment of inertia will result in a rapid rate of rotation. Ice skaters make use of this principle in their spins, and you can demonstrate this if you have a turntable that you can stand on. Hold your arms out and begin spinning; if you pull your arms in, you will spin much faster (be careful).

Since we have good estimates of the mass and distance of the Moon, and we can observe the rate of precession of the Earth, we may determine the moment of inertia of the Earth. It is 8.07 x 1037 kg-m2, or 0.33 M R2 (where M and R are the Earth's mass and average radius, respectively). A homogeneous sphere would have a moment of inertia of 0.4 M R2, so this indicates that the mass of the Earth is concentrated toward it's center (density increases inward). More importantly, however, the Earth's moment of inertia puts a very tight constraint on how the density increases inward.

As it says, think of a spinning top. It spins quickly itself, and then its poles also spin in a circular way much slower.

As a side note........

This precession may also be responsible for climate change. Every approximate 13,500 years the precession will have rotated the axis with the Earth's tilt facing the opposite direction. For example. If it is summer in the southern hemisphere during Dec-Feb, this is due to this hemisphere being closer to the sun relative to the northern hemisphere, and the associated day lengths. However in 13,500 years, is will be the northern hemisphere that will have longer days and warmer conditions at this time of year, as summer will replace the winter period and vice versa.

Are you suggesting that a very large mass, very close to the sun, would be invisible to modern detection techniques which can already observe exoplanets? And if we observed it passing in front of the sun relative to us that we would not see its silhouette using modern equipment, and also escape detection?

I don't buy the idea that our sun is part of a binary system.

If there is a brown dwarf companion, even if it doesn't emit light it would still be visible due to reflected light. And if that isn't possible, then surely there would come a time when we would see it transit across the face of the main sun.

As for the precession of the equinox, it was my understanding that the precession is due to precession - based upon rotational physics.

Although some books are good, they can be written by anyone. People who have no idea about a subject can write a book, and make it appear as controversial.

It's really quite pointless to argue since we don't really know, but you are incorrect in assuming that the sun's companion would emit visible light, or that it would be visible when transiting the sun.

The common theory about precession is that it is due to a wobble in the earth's rotational axis.  Yet nobody has provided a verifiable explanation for how that wobble got there in the first place, or for why the earth's rotational period does not appear to be slowing down.

The models which consider the possibility of a binary sun system take two facts into account.  The first is that most of the star systems we have studied are in fact binary.  The second is that a binary model provides for the precession of the equinoxes without having to introduce a new variable.

As far as precession being due to precession. . um.. what are you trying to say there?  The precession of the equinoxes describes the apparent motion of the galaxy relative to the earth's pole, yet it is obvious that the galaxy is not rotating around the earth. . .

If there is a brown dwarf companion, even if it doesn't emit light it would still be visible due to reflected light.

Would it?  Maybe not by the unaided human eye.

Yes.  Discernment is needed.

If there is a brown dwarf companion, even if it doesn't emit light it would still be visible due to reflected light. And if that isn't possible, then surely there would come a time when we would see it transit across the face of the main sun.

As for the precession of the equinox, it was my understanding that the precession is due to precession - based upon rotational physics.

Although some books are good, they can be written by anyone. People who have no idea about a subject can write a book, and make it appear as controversial.

I have seen "The Great Year". .it's definitely worth watching.

Cool. Thanks for the recommendation.