Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/wide open road/sumeria/Science/twosuns.txt

Text File | 1994-05-30 | 11KB | 225 lines

          Do We Have A Double Sun?
          by Henry Rasmusen



       We definitely DO  have  TWO  SUNS, according to M. F. Malin, of Salt
       Lake City, who has spent much of his spare time for over forty years
       in pursuit of such a theory.

       The possibility of the existence of a double sun in our solar system
       began for Malin in 1917, when he overhead a conversation between two
       men, evidently scientists, on a train in New Jersey.

       The subject of their conversation  was  the  failure  of  the law of
       gravitation with respect to the relations of Earth  and  Sun - their
       conclusion being that  the  basis  of  velocities of bodies in space
       must be otherwise than that laid down  in Newton's PRINCIPIA.  Malin
       was studying sculpture  at  the  time,  at the National  Academy  of
       Design in New York.

       This failure of  the gravitational law was shocking to him, for even
       he knew that Newton's mathematical demonstrations in this connection
       had formed the  groundwork  of  the   whole   of  modern  mechanics,
       engineering and physics.

       How could the law have failed, when the results of  this  work  were
       already interwoven throughout  the whole structure of science in all
       its branches?  The modern researches  of  Einstein  and  others were
       always said to have enhanced the value of the PRINCIPIA.

       The matter attracted the young sculptor so greatly  that  from  that
       time he began   to   divide  his  attention  about  equally  between
       sculpture and astrophysical study,  often working far into the night
       in efforts to  improve  his  meager  knowledge  of mathematics,  and
       spending his available    time    poring   over   astronomical   and
       astrophysical works in the libraries.

       Quite early in these studies, he  found  that  although  Newton  had
       proven his law very successfully in connection with  the  Earth-Moon
       system, he had been forced to abandon his efforts to apply it to the
       relations of Earth and Sun because the sun's distance and dimensions
       were not known with any degree of accuracy in his time.

       A couple of  centuries  later  (after 1894), when the sun's distance
       and size had been agreed upon and  established  internationally, the
       apparent discrepancies in the gravitational relations of Earth and
       Sun had become painfully evident.

       Usuing the sun as a CENTER OF ATTRACTION, with the Earth-Moon system
       as a unit  of  measurement, the proper elements of the earth's orbit
       were readily calculable - but everywhere seemed to be awry.

       The earth's distance,  period  and   velocity   were  hopelessly  at
       variance with each other according to the gravitation  law,  but the
       distance and period  had  been  established by observation and could
       not be adjusted.  Also, the sun's  size  in  connection  with  these
       elements presented an awkward problem.

       After many a headache over the situation, the calculators of the day
       had given up,  and  had  conceded  that the basis of  velocities  in
       Nature must be  other than in Newton's work and had offered the poor
       parody of gravitational relations on the part of Sun and Earth which
       is current in the astronomy books of today.

       This was even more intriguing than  ever,  because  it was perfectly
       clear that this  basis  of  velocities  -  that is,  the  amount  of
       material in the  body  divided  by the square of the distance of the
       attracted particle - literally IS  THE  LAW OF GRAVITATION, and that
       upon this point the Newtonian law as a whole must stand or fall.

       Here was something  which could not be thrust aside  by  denials  or
       contradictions; it was  something no mathematician could deny.  What
       could be wrong?  And why had the failure seemed to apply ONLY to the
       relations of Earth and Sun?

       Malin made some simple calculations which showed that

                 THE SUN HAS LESS THAN ONE-THIRD  THE  VOLUME  OF  MATERIAL
                 REQUISITE TO  ITS EXISTENCE AS THE CENTRAL  ATTRACTION  OF
                 THE PLANETARY SYSTEM,

       even if its average density were the same as that of the earth.

       And if its  density  were  only about one-fourth as great as that of
       the Earth -  as the astronomer USUALLY  RECKONS  -  the  discrepancy
       would be all the more hopeless.

       How could a discordancy of such proportions ever have  been  glossed
       over for the public in the astronomy books?  People in general, even
       among the scientists,  seemed entirely unaware that the sun-centered
       theory and the law of gravitation WERE IRRECONCILABLE.

       No doubt some of the mathematicians  knew  but  could  not  face the
       issue, not knowing anything that could be done about  it.  And WHERE
       WAS THE REMAINDER OF THE PLANETARY SYSTEM?

       There seemed to  be  only  one  possible place in the system.  For a
       body larger than the sun in volume,  or  the equivalent with unequal
       densities -

                 a position PERPETUALLY IN ALIGNMENT BEHIND THE SUN
                 AS SEEN FROM THE EARTH,

       incredible as this might seem at first glance.

       And if there  were  a relationship between mass and brightness among
       stars, perhaps THE GREATER STAR WOULD  BE  BRIGHTER  AND HOTTER THAN
       THE SUN, and there should be some physical signs of its presence.

       If such a body existed, the planetary system would  revolve around a
       center of gravity SITUATED BETWEEN THE TWO, SOME DISTANCE BEYOND THE
       SUN.

       It was not  very difficult to calculate the proper radius of Earth's
       orbit by Newton's methods, and this  turned  out  to  be 101,300,000
       miles - placing the possible center of gravity of the  system  about
       4,800,000 miles BEYOND THE SUN.

       Later, Malin wrote   an   imaginative   account   of   the  physical
       appearances which might be expected  if  there  were  a brighter and
       hotter star operating at comparatively close range  BEHIND  THE SUN,
       and made drawings to illustrate the writing.

       Of course, he  already  supposed  that  the  solar  corona  and  the
       zodiacal lights were involved.  He  went deeper into the findings of
       observation in the reality and compared the real phenomena  with his
       drawings, searching the  periodicals and books for new observations,
       new findings, new information.

       As the years  passed,  it  became  more  and  more  clear  that  the
       imaginative phenomena were all present in the planetary  system  but
       formed a bewildering  chain  of scientific mysteries on the strictly
       sun-centered plan of Copernicus.

       The scientific situation could all  be summed up in the words of the
       eminent astronomer Simon Newcomb,

          "The amazing fact that observation has opened up mainly
           mysteries in the sun; that as a result the world is
           farther than ever from a satisfactory solution to solar
           phenomena."

       Malin had grown up in the Mormon faith, in fact had  spent two years
       as a missionary  in  New  Zealand  before  he was twenty.  Something
       which might have helped him substantiate  the  double  sun theory in
       his own mind is to be found in one of the basic books  of  Mormon  -
       THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE.

       The book is  mainly  a  compilation  of  material  which  the Mormon
       founder-prophet, Joseph Smith had  translated  into  English  from a
       scroll of Egyptian  papyrus  brought  to  him by a stranger  in  the
       1820's.

       Among other things  in the translation was a group of heiroglyphics,
       showing humans, birds  and  symbological   figures.   One  of  these
       symbols Smith interpreted as being "a planet called  Kolob, which is
       directly BEHIND THE SUN."

       Whether or not  this had any influence on Malin's thinking, it is an
       interesting parallel.

       In 1931 a booklet, SOLAR ARRANGEMENT,  was distributed to the world's
       major observatories.  It  contained  drawings  which  portrayed  the
       Zodiacal body with its light and heat AS A SEPARATE ENTITY BEHIND
       THE SUN from  the  earth, with all the sun's major "mysteries" DRAWN
       IN AS NORMAL PHENOMENA.

       Up to that time, Dr. Fath's spectrum  of the zodiacal light had been
       accepted as a matter of course - indicating that the light consisted
       MERELY OF REFLECTED SUNLIGHT.

       The light had long been so much a mystery that very  little had ever
       been written about  it  in  the  astronomy  books.   Within  a year,
       several new spectra appeared from various scientific sources, all of
       them showing the zodiacal light TO  HAVE AN EMISSION SPECTRUM OF ITS
       OWN, APART FROM THOSE OF THE SUN, the corona and the aurora.

         (Vangard note...a  critical  point in this paper,  the  fact  that
          there were  DIFFERENT  EMISSION  SPECTRA from readings taken from
          the rim and those taken from the interior surface of the disk)

       Malin's drawings and text represented  the  solar  corona  as  being
       intensely hot in the space AROUND THE EDGE OF THE SUN'S VISIBLE DISK
       - being the gaseous product of TERRIFIC RADIATION  poured  out  upon
       the sun's body at comparatively close range FROM A PLACE BEHIND IT.

       In the years  that  have  followed,  the sun, with a measured facial
       temperature of about 6,000 degrees  Centigrade, has been found to be
       SITTING IN THE  MIDST OF ATOMIC CORONAL TEMPERATURES  OF  A  MILLION
       DEGREES AND MORE..

       Incidentally, this leaves  the  scientists  to suppose that they are
       looking through a million degrees  of  termperature  IN FRONT OF THE
       SUN when measuring 6,000 degrees Centigrade ON THE SOLAR SURFACE, if
       they adhere to the SUN-CENTERED IDEA.

       It may be  added, that in their researches of today  the  physicists
       USUALLY DISTINGUISH between  the  zodiacal  light  area of the SOLAR
       CORONA (light and radiation radiating  from the circumference of the
       disk) and the  SOLAR AREA (across the diameter of  the  disk).   Why
       would they have  to  distinguish between the two readings if it is A
       SINGLE BODY??

       Some college professors have found  the yearly period on the part of
       the binary to be impossible, but this is because they  have  started
       out by ASSUMING  THE SUN TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT with every other body
       SUPERFLUOUS.

       As matters stand,  the  astronomers  and  physicists  have  only  to
       acknowledge that the conditions on and in front of the visible solar
       disk ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from those found in the violent upheaval
       and gaseous turmoil  AROUND  ITS  "EDGES," and then  THE  REST  WILL
       FOLLOW as a  matter  of  course,  and soon the strictly sun-centered
       theory will be as obsolete as the  epicycles  of  the earth-centered
       era.

       Then our solar  system will be acknowledged to have  a  double  sun,
       WHICH IS THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION in the Universe.


       END