| DATA
Many LRH references talk about Marcabians. They are Beings on the
planet Marcab who have been using Earth as a dumping ground and prison for
unwanted Beings on their planet.
Enslaver Agents have put false data on the internet to invalidate the
existence of Marcab.
FACTS
The following are excerpts from newsgroup and internet posts written by
David Griffin (Jontu) wherein he corrects some of the false data about the
existence of Marcab.
Jontu
13 December 2001
…The correct spelling is Marcab and Marcabian.
There is a star named (on Earth charts) Markab, which is in the
constellation Pegasus. This star is not related to the planet Marcab, home
planet of the Marcabian system (which is in Ursa Major) and the Marcabian
federation. On Earth charts, the star of the Marcabian system is called
Mizar, and it is in the handle of the Big Dipper.
The Marcabian federation is composed of seven other planets in various
systems, besides this one, which are all controlled by the Marcabian Grand
Council, located on the home planet of Marcab. Earth is run by a local
council of three (currently consisting of Malehedrek - sometimes called
Malek, Sarduk, and Jordain who filled the vacant post left by Devaklor)
through their garrison forces; the council of three being appointed by,
and answerable to, the Marcabian Grand Council on Marcab.
There is a much older and larger federation that is referred to as the
Galactic Federation, and which encompasses the Milky Way galaxy. The
ruling body for the Galactic Federation is located in Sector 0, at the
center of the galaxy. Earth is located way out on the edge of the galaxy,
in Sector 9…
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part I
From: "Jontu"
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
Sent: February 02, 2002
A galaxy is a relatively dense cluster of millions (or billions) of
stars sitting in space. The galaxy we are in is called the Milky Way which
contains over 200 billion stars. There are many other galaxies besides
this one, separated by vast (relatively speaking) distances of empty pace.
Similar to island groups separated by large stretches of ocean. The
collection of galaxies, nebulae, etc. and the spaces in-between, are what
we call the MEST universe. One of the near-by galaxies is called
Andromeda.
LRH tape lecture 21 MAY 1963 - THE HELATROBUS
IMPLANTS:
"...he escaped them because he's from another galaxy. He ain't not
native to this 'ere galaxy. You may find somebody who is native to this
galaxy who never went through it.
So there's traffic between
galaxies and there's traffic between islands of galaxies and other islands
of galaxies."
You can see photographs of some other galaxies here:
http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~frei/Gcat_htm/cat_ims.htm
The
Milky Way is a spiral galaxy, shaped (funnily enough) a bit like the
classic flying-saucer shape - disk shaped and thicker in the middle,
thinner out at the edges. It is slightly elliptical, and the maximum
diameter of our galaxy has been put at approx. 100,000 light years, but it
gets very thin and sparse out at the edges. There are arms (like a string
of islands) that come out of the central core and taper off towards the
outer rim. The entire galaxy is spinning, which accounts for its shape and
the spiral arms. We are located on one of these arms out towards the end,
and are approximately 27,000 light years from the central core of the
galaxy.
LRH tape lecture 21 MAY 1963 - THE HELATROBUS
IMPLANTS:
"You know the galaxy is a big wheel and the galaxy has a hub and it has
a rim and we are very close to the rim."
"...this is a rim system
that we are in right now. This is Sun 12 and it is a rim, tiny,
microscopic, terribly insignificant little bunch of space dust. Not to do
it down particularly but compared to other systems, galaxies,
confederations and that sort of things and other possessions of
confederations and so forth, this is nothing. That's why it's left
alone."
"...and people wishing to get rid of troublesome characters,
captives, anybody you can think of... You know, around city dumps, you
know, they always have trouble around cities because people start using
certain areas of the city for dumps, you know? And they take-use it as a
dumping ground for the ice cube and for other things: unwanted beings,
unwanted people, unwanted personnel.”
You can find more about
the Milky Way here: http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html
All
of the stars discussed from this point on, are all located within our
galaxy - the Milky Way.
A constellation is a specific grouping of
stars, which often time appear to be in an identifiable shape as seen from
Earth. Some well known constellations include Aquarius, Cassiopeia, Draco,
Orion, Pegasus, and Ursa Major (the Great Bear), which also happens to
include The Big Dipper. There is another constellation called Ursa Minor
(the Lesser Bear) which also includes the Small Dipper.
You can
find more on specific constellations here: http://www.dibonsmith.com/constel.htm
The
stars within a constellation are often further identified using Greek
letters in descending order such as alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon,
zeta, etc.
Let's first start by narrowing down the specific area of
the galaxy. The enslaver agents were busy for a while trying to misdirect
attention over to the star Markab in the constellation of Pegasus. At a
distance of approx. 140 light years from Earth, it is one of four stars
comprising the Great Square of Pegasus, with Markab (Alpha) at the
southwestern corner. It is also called Alpha Pegasi (Alpha Pegasus - the
first star of the Pegasus group).
The following posts were done on Ralph Hilton's fzint discussion
board:
punkfloyd
December 12, 2001
"Good news for all anti-Markab folks: (http://www.astro.uiuc.edu/~kaler/sow/markab.html)
Markab
has just begun to die. If hydrogen fusion has not already ceased in its
core, it is very close. The star is in a sense clinging to its
lifeline..."
punkfloyd
December 14, 2001
"Markab is an actual star, otherwise known as Alpha
Pegasus."
punkfloyd
January 02, 2002
"Ralph, as I posted before Marcab the star is Alpha Pegasus."
-----------------------------------------------------
Now you will notice, in the last two posts, that punkfloyd uses two
different spellings. This was done intentionally to confuse the issue, and
to make it look as if the STAR Markab was the same as the PLANET Marcab.
Punkfloyd's post done on 14 December is correct, the third one done on 02
January uses the spelling for the planet located elsewhere.
[Note: the following refers to the Rons Org Eu website at: http://www.freezone.de/ ]
On the
Glossary page, you will find the following definition:
"MARKABIAN Member of Markab Confederacy (of various planets of star
systems in the region of Polaris)"
Well this is just getting curiouser and curiouser…
Polaris (also know as the North Star) is in the Small Dipper, which is
a part of Ursa Minor (The Lesser Bear).
LRH tape lecture 27 Nov 59
- Principal Incidents on the Track:
"...Let's start back a little bit further, where you will find quite a
few pcs. And that is the Marcab, or the Big Dipper area of this particular
galaxy..."
The Big Dipper is located in Ursa Major, the Small Dipper
(containing Polaris) is located in Ursa Minor - completely different
constellations.
I wonder why the freezone.de website not only uses the wrong spelling
for Marcab and Marcabian, but also locates the federation in the wrong
constellation?
As mentioned earlier, a constellation is a grouping of stars that
appear to be in an identifiable shape as seen from Earth. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that the stars are close to each other, they just look
that way from Earth. For example, the Big Dipper consists of seven stars.
But are all of those stars really a coherent group? No, they are not. As
currently seen from Earth they form the familiar dipper pattern, but in
reality only five of those seven stars are near each other.
The
central five stars of the Dipper, plus Alcor and several other stars,
constitute a physical group called the Ursa Major Cluster, also known as
Collinder 285. The dipper stars which are a part of the cluster include
Merak, Phecda, Megrez, Alioth, and Mizar. Alcor, next to Mizar, is a
member as well, as are several other stars. The average distance to the
cluster is about 80 light years.
The two end stars of the dipper
are not a part of this cluster at all, and are much further from Earth
than the central cluster. Alkaid at the end of the handle or tail, is 100
light years away, while Dubhe at the end of the cup is 124 light years
away. Polaris (located in Ursa Minor), as a comparison, is 430 light years
away, and in a different direction.
Two excerpts from LRH tape lectures:
“Marcab Confederacy - various planets united into a very vast
civilization which has come forward up through the last 200,000 years, is
formed out of the fragments of earlier civilizations.”
"...Let's
start back a little bit further, where you will find quite a few pcs. And
that is the Marcab, or the Big Dipper area of this particular
galaxy..."
So we've narrowed it down to "various planets" circling stars in
the Big Dipper area, and we also know that within that constellation there
exists a physical cluster of stars which are relatively close to each
other. So far, so good. If we eliminate Alkaid (20 light years from the
cluster), that then leaves us with only two "tail stars" remaining in the
cluster: Alioth and Mizar.
LRH tape lecture 6 August 1963 - AUDITING COMM CYCLES:
"...we have often called it and referred to it in the past as the
Marcab Confederacy. And it has been wrongly or rightly pointed to as one
of the tail stars of the Big Dipper, which is the
capital
planet..."
Well that's what we're after - the capital planet - Marcab.
LRH tape lecture 12 June 1961 - E-METER ACTIONS ERRORS IN AUDITING:
"Marcab always had plan balanced economies."
LRH tape lecture 4 Aug 1966 - DIANETICS, SCIENTOLOGY AND SOCIETY:
"He was cracking up airplanes on Marcab..."
LRH tape lecture 25 Oct 1962 - 3GA CRISS CROSS DATA:
"...I mention that because some of you have got Marcab on your tracks. A
lot of you people run into bits and pieces of the racetracks of
Marcab."
Now if you recall, we are located out on the rim of the
galaxy, approximately 27,000 light years from the central core. The Ursa
Major Cluster (containing Mizar) is approximately 80 light years from
Earth, so it is also on the outskirts of the galaxy.
LRH tape
lecture 21 May 63 - THE HELATROBUS IMPLANTS:
"...this is a rim system that we are in right now. This is Sun 12 and
it is a rim, tiny, microscopic, terribly insignificant little bunch of
space dust. ...It's peculiarly isolated. This is also true of most of
the stars out in this end of this wheel.
...In other words, these
people are-have overts so they try to protect themselves from the
vengeance of a free thetan and they compound the possibility and the
potentiality of this particular universe as a trap, and they make these
people very thoroughly trapped. Well, they dump them. They dump them
pretty well far from home. They try to - don't even try to - they don't
dump them close in, they dump them way out.
Well, Helatrobus threw
any people that it implanted as far as possible. Oh, some of them were -
wandered back, and some of them stayed around, and some of them didn't get
badly affected and reported back and that sort of thing, but they also
dumped people pretty far out.
So this particular system got
dumping, and the Marcab Confederacy and some of the other stars around
here just got a terrific concentration of people being dumped from the
center of the hub, you know. They don't want to go over to the next
galaxy, so they just take it out to the edge of the city, you
know."
[Note: the following were posted on Ralph Hilton’s
website]
punkfloyd
December 14, 2001
"Markab is an actual star,
otherwise known as Alpha Pegasus. It means "Saddle" in arabic. (recall
that Pegasus was a horse). I cannot guarantee that this is the same star
that LRH calls Markab, but it seems likely. Markab is for sure one of the
stars in "Galaxy Confederation" as described in OT3…"
Ralph
Hilton (Ralph)
December 16, 2001
"Markab isn't listed as one of
the stars in "Revolt in the Stars":
Galactic Confederation member
stars: Sirius, Canopus, Alpha Centauri, Vega, Capella, Arcturus, Rigel,
Procyon, Achernar, Beta Centauri, Altair, Betelgeuse, Acrux, Aldebaran,
Pollux, Spica, Antares, Fomalhaut, Deneb, Regulus and
Sol."
punkfloyd
December 16, 2001
"Ralph,
you
are right. Thanks for clarification.
I was going by the OT3
dscription of Galactic Confederation as being "76 planets around larger
stars visible from here".
Actually, I did a quick search and could
not find any mention of "Markab" or "Marcab" in neither OTIII nor Revolt
In The Stars nor even Class
VIII."
-------------------------------------------------------
Now Ralph has tried to throw another confusion into the mix by not
only misdirecting back to the star Markab again (2.5 days after my
clarification), but also by bringing up Incident II, and the script from
Revolt in the Stars which is the lead up to Incident II. This however,
relates to a time period of approx. 75 million years ago.
LRH
tape lecture 06 Aug 1963 - Auditing Comm Cycles:
"This planet is part of a larger federation - was part of an earlier
federation and passed out of its control due to losses in war and other
such things. Now, this larger confederacy - this isn't its right name, but
we have often called it and referred to it in the past as the Marcab
Confederacy. And it has been wrongly or rightly pointed to as one of the
tail stars of the Big Dipper, which is the capital
planet...
...these various planets united into a very vast
civilization which has come forward up through the last two hundred
thousand years [and] is formed out of the fragments of earlier
civilizations.
...You find a type of mental implanting and that
sort of thing going on here in the last couple of hundred thousand years
which are not native to your earlier track."
So while Ron is
talking Big Dipper area 200,000 years ago, Ralph is talking Alpha Pegasi
75 million years ago. Must be the schnapps.
Continuing now...
[Note: the following were also posted on Ralph Hilton’s
website]
Justin White (Antmanbee)
December 18, 2001
"Ralph said
:-
"Markab isn't listed as one of the stars in "Revolt in the
Stars":
Galactic Confederation member stars: Sirius, Canopus, Alpha
Centauri, Vega, Capella, Arcturus, Rigel, Procyon, Achernar, Beta
Centauri, Altair, Betelgeuse, Acrux, Aldebaran, Pollux, Spica, Antares,
Fomalhaut, Deneb, Regulus and Sol."
according to Jontu the
Marcabian from the other list:-
Re. the spelling of Marcab and
Marcabian ...The correct spelling is Marcab and Marcabian.
There is
a star named (on Earth charts) Markab, which is in the constellation
Pegasus. This star is not related to the planet Marcab, home planet of the
Marcabian system (which is in Ursa Major) and the Marcabian federation. On
Earth charts, the star of the Marcabian system is called Mizar, and it is
in the handle of the Big Dipper.
The star Mizar is not on the
"Revolt in the Stars list" either even though Jontu has stated that Marcab
is part of the Galactic confederation.
So Punkfloyd, I guess the
Marcabians don't have any problem with their star. Unless Mizar is
similarly
unstable.
Justin"
-------------------------------------------------------
It seems to have taken the enslaver working group 4 days to come up
with a new strategy for DAing me (the comm lag), after my clarifying post
about Markab and Marcab. But you will notice that antmanbee throws in the
bit about Revolt in the Stars, once again muddying up the waters. You will
also notice that punkfloyd's planned response comes less than 3.5 hours
later, and this is the enemy line that they (including Scipher) are still
following:
punkfloyd
December 18, 2001
">So
Punkfloyd, I guess the Marcabians don't have any problem with their star.
Unless Mizar is similarly unstable.
Ugh. They do. Mizar is a
*quintuple* star. Mizar is double and each of its components is itself a
double star. What's more the whole setup spins around yet another star -
Alcor.
All 5 stars are hot white "main sequence" stars which means
they are 10 to 30 brighter than the sun. The number of stars in the system
also indicates that there could be no planet rotating around the star with
any sort of a nice orbit. Gravitation should be way too uneven. It is
believed that earth-like lifeforms are very unlikely even around double
stars - climate will be changing too erratically. And here we have 5! And
very bright ones at that. I'd not rule life completely but it is for sure
nothing like our
life.
punkfloyd"
-------------------------------------------------------
And
this is the point at which I will end part I, and pick up in part
II...
=======================================================
Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part II
From: "Jontu"
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
February 16,
2002
In Part I, we narrowed down the area of Marcab to the Ursa Major
Cluster, specifically Alioth and Mizar, and began to look at the most
recent attempts by the enslaver agents, to keep the area confused and
Marcab hidden.
From HCOPL 11 May 71, PR Series 7, BLACK PR:
"...So PR enters intelligence in this way: One finds who set up the
black propaganda and explodes that into public view.
This use of PR
is almost that of an auditor of the group. One is disclosing hidden
sources of aberration."
[Note: the following was posted on Ralph Hilton’s website]
punkfloyd
December 18, 2001
">So Punkfloyd, I guess the
Marcabians don't have any problem with their star. Unless Mizar is
similarly unstable.
Ugh. They do. Mizar is a *quintuple* star.
Mizar is double and each of its components is itself a double star. What's
more teh whole setup spins around yet another star - Alcor.
All 5
stars are hot white "main sequence" stars which means they are 10 to 30
brighter than the sun. The number of stars in the system also indicates
that there could be no planet rotating around the star with any sort of a
nice orbit. Gravitation should be way too uneven. It is believed that
earth-like lifeforms are very unlikely even around double stars - climat
will be changing too erratically. And here we have 5! And very bright ones
at that. I'd not rule life completely but it is for sure nothing like our
life.
punkfloyd"
-------------------------------------------------------
This was an obvious attempt by punkfloyd at misdirecting attention
away from Mizar by creating the impression that humanoid life couldn't
*possibly* exist in that system.
So now it is time to deconstruct punkfloyd's post, which is the basic
on this particular chain.
HCOPL 21 Nov 72, PR Series 18, How to Handle Black Propaganda:
"The technique of proving utterances false is called "DEAD AGENTING."
It's in the first book of Chinese espionage. When the enemy agent gives
false data, those who believed him but now find it false kill him - or at
least cease to believe him.
So the PR slang for it is "dead
agenting."
This consists of disproving utterly the false statement
with documents or demonstration or display. One has to have a kit (a
collection of documents) or the ability to demonstrate or something to
display.
...The subject matter of dead agenting is PROOF in
whatever form."
punkfloyd:
"Mizar is a *quintuple* star.
Mizar is double and each of its components is itself a double star. What's
more the whole setup spins around yet another star -
Alcor."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Mizar” is in-fact, composed of multiple stars. It is generally
considered to consist of two sets of binary stars that then spin around
each other, bringing the total number of stars to four. Throughout most of
this series, we will go on the assumption that Mizar consists of four
stars.
The primary binary components were first identified around
1650. From Earth (78 light years away), Mizar appears to be a single star
except through a telescope, which is why it is identified as a single star
on Earth star charts. A star chart being a graphical or three-dimensional
representation of the physical universe. On star tables, the primary
components are listed as Mizar A and Mizar B (Earth star tables that
is).
So when you point to Mizar, which star are you actually
pointing at?
"All 5 stars..."
It was believed for a long
time that Mizar and Alcor were themselves a binary pair, and this pair is
referred to as "The Horse and Rider". However Alcor is at least 500
astronomical units distance from Mizar. One astronomical unit being equal
to the mean (average) distance of the Earth from the sun, which equates to
approximately 93 million miles. Therefore, Alcor is at least (93 million x
500) = 46.5 billion miles from Mizar. Certainly a quick jump by ship, but
much too far to have any significant effect on the stellar and planetary
configurations of Mizar.
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/astron/const/Ursamajor/mizar.html
"Mizar
and Alcor are not true double stars; that is to say they do not orbit
around a common centre of gravity- they appear close together simply
though a line of sight effect and are known as optical doubles."
So
we can eliminate the 5th star (Alcor) from any further discussions, and
concentrate on the Mizar system.
"All 5 stars are hot
white..."
One of the ways stars are classified is by surface
temperature, which is measured in degrees Kelvin. The surface temperature
has a direct effect of the spectral output of the star, or loosely
translated - the color. The color range (from low to high) includes red,
orange, yellow, yellow-white, white, and blue-white near the top. In the
lower ranges, it is as if you were using a dimmer switch on an
incandescent light bulb. At the low setting you get a very orangish light,
and when you turn it all the way up you get a yellow-white light. This
relates directly to the temperature of the filament inside the
bulb.
Now if you compare the light from a standard incandescent
bulb to the light from a halogen bulb, you will notice a distinct
difference in the color temperature of the light. The output from a
halogen bulb is very white light, compared to the yellow-white light of a
regular bulb. The filament is hotter, thus the whiter light.
And so
it is with stars. The surface temperature/color of the star is used as a
method of classifying them into different groups. Below are listed some of
the classes of stars, the color output, and the surface temperature in
degrees Kelvin:
B - blue-white 9750 - 31,000
A - white 7100 -
9750
F - yellowish-white 5950 - 7100
G - yellowish 5250 - 5950
K
- orange 3950 - 5250
M - reddish 2000 - 3950
L - red-infrared 1500 -
2000
Our own star (Sol) is a class G star, with a surface
temperature of around 5800. This puts it in the upper range of the yellow
class, near the yellowish-white spectral output.
Mizar A and Mizar
B are both considered to be in the A class, which means that those stars
put out a much whiter light than old Sol does.
Each of the classes
above, is further divided into sub-classes ranging from 0 - 9 in
reverse-order. In other words, 9 is at the bottom of the range (lower
surface temperature) while 0 is at the top
(I didn't create this system, I'm just explaining it). Sol is a G2,
which is near the top end of the range for G class stars.
Mizar A
(one binary pair) is an A1 class which puts it just under the top of the
range (0), while Mizar B is an A7 class (near the bottom). This means that
the two binary pairs have slightly different colors. In actual fact, when
you are flying in towards the system, all of the stars have slightly
different colors and it is actually quite beautiful. As a matter of fact,
at certain times, from a specific angle and distance, they look like a
"cluster of jewels" hanging there in space.
So even if your
navigational instruments are down, you can still find your way to the
right system by the unique color of the stars. If your perceptions are
good enough.
"All 5 stars are hot white "main sequence"
stars..."
"Main Sequence" merely refers to the stage of life a star
is in. When a forming star has reached a certain point, nuclear fusion
begins taking place in the core, fusing the nuclei of atoms together to
make helium from hydrogen. This is the basic process which results in the
release of energy, and a star generating an energy output. Our own sun is
in this "main sequence" which is what makes it possible for biological
life to exist on the planet. To say that a star is "main sequence" merely
refers to the fact that it is in a normal, stable condition, putting out
energy as it should be. Ordinarily the term is not put in quotes, but this
was done by the author merely for dramatic effect.
"All 5 stars are
hot white "main sequence" stars..."
The impression they were trying
to create was that anything near the star (or stars) would be burned to a
cinder. Of course, as usual, they were relying on people having
misunderstoods in this area, in order to pull off their
deception...
Spectra refers to the specific wavelengths of energy
being put out by radiating bodies such as a light bulb or a star. Each
will have a unique "fingerprint" so-to-speak in terms of its spectrum.
Here is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum containing visible
light:
Ultraviolet
Blue
Green
Yellow
Orange
Red
Infrared
The
top and bottom of the range get outside of the visible (to human eyes)
spectrum. The higher on the scale, the shorter the wavelength/higher
frequency. Now radiating bodies will radiate varying degrees of specific
wavelengths. For example a lot of blue, a little bit of yellow, and a lot
of red will produce a specific curve or graph when plotted out. Examining
the specific signature of a radiation source is known as spectrographic
analysis. This can vary greatly from source to source, which gives you the
specific signature or unique identifier.
From our earlier example
of light bulbs, we know that the whiter light put out by a halogen bulb is
due mainly to the hotter temperature of its filament compared to a
standard incandescent. But put your hand near a fluorescent tube. It is
cool compared to an incandescent bulb. But it puts out very white light -
even bluish white - which should be very hot. So why isn't it? Fluorescent
tubes have completely different spectra than incandescent bulbs.
Incandescent bulbs put out a LOT of radiation in the IR band (Infrared),
which is why they feel "hot". Heat lamps are specially designed bulbs that
radiate mainly in the IR range with some visible red coming out as well.
Fluorescent tubes put out very little radiation in the IR range, which is
why they feel cool.
So something feeling "hot" - at a distance - is
a direct result of the amount of radiation being emanated in the infrared
band, and not necessarily it's color or surface temperature. If you could
measure the temperature of the ionized gas inside of a fluorescent tube,
you would find that it is "hot", and yet the tube itself radiates very
little heat.
Here is a link which illustrates the basic physics
involved in spectral output from stars. You can skip down to the graphic
half-way down the page which shows the changing spectral output as the
surface temperature increases. You can see that, as the surface
temperature of a star increases, the amount of infrared radiation
decreases (ultraviolet is to the left, infrared is to the right):
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/radiation.html
Here
is a link which will let you play around with specific surface
temperatures to see the effects on spectral outputs of stars:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/wien.html
"All
5 stars are hot white "main sequence" stars..."
Hmm...doesn't have
quite the same impact any more does it? Clearing confusions tends to do
that.
However, we're not even through with the first sentence
yet...
"All 5 stars are hot white "main sequence" stars which means
they are 10 to 30 brighter than the sun."
Now we get into another
aspect of stars called luminosity - the amount of visible light they put
out. As this post is already quite long, I will save that for the next
installment...
=======================================================
Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part III
From: "Jontu"
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
Sent: February
16, 2002
In Part II, we started clearing up the confusions and false
ideas created by the enslaver working group on Ralph Hilton's fzint
discussion forum regarding the conditions in the Mizar system. However
before moving on, there is one item I need to correct.
In part II, I said of the distance between Alcor and Mizar:
"However
Alcor is at least 500 astronomical units distance from Mizar. One
astronomical unit being equal to the mean (average) distance of the Earth
from the sun..."
Precision parallaxes (a method of computing stellar distances) with the
Hipparcos satellite between 1989 and 1993 showed Mizar to be 78.1 light
years from Earth, but Alcor to be 81.1 light years away, a separation in
the Y direction of three light years.
You can find a basic description of the parallax method
here:
http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjp/astroparallax.html
On the visual plane, the two stars are separated by about 11.8 minutes
of arc, which, at an average distance of 79.6 light years, equates to 0.27
light years apart. So, even if they were both the same distance (in the Y
direction) from Earth, they are still separated in the X direction by 1.59
trillion miles (over 17,000 AU), which of course matches with the
paragraph that followed which was:
http://www.sciencenet.org.uk/astron/const/Ursamajor/mizar.html
"Mizar
and Alcor are not true double stars; that is to say they do not orbit
around a common centre of gravity. They appear close together simply
though a line of sight effect and are known as optical doubles."
Now that that has been clarified, let's see if we can get through a bit
more of it now.
punkfloyd:
"All 5 stars are hot white "main sequence" stars which
means they are 10 to 30 brighter than the sun."
We already know that we can eliminate the 5th star - Alcor - as being
too far away, and that "hot white" and "main sequence" have no bearing on
this issue. But how about that 30 times brighter than the sun thing. That
sounds pretty bad doesn't it?
Well then, let's clear up another aspect of stars called luminosity -
the amount of visible light they put out.
Bolometric Luminosity is a star's total energy output over all
wavelengths including infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, gamma rays,
etc. The term comes from bolometer, a device used for measuring radiant
energy. This is referred to as L bol. Sol is considered to have a
bolometric luminosity of 1.0, so it is the baseline against which other
stars are measured. L bol is used for calculating the total energy balance
and average effective temperature for a planet in it's system.
Visual Luminosity is the amount of radiant energy put out within the
visual spectrum, which is always going to be less than the bolometric
luminosity. For example, a G2 class star (like Sol) with a bolometric
luminosity of 1.10 would have a visual luminosity of 0.97. Visual
luminosity is what could be called brightness. In part II we briefly
examined stellar spectral output for various surface temperatures.
Punkfloyd's statement "10 to 30 brighter than the sun" comes from the
typical visual luminosity for an A7 class star (10x) and an A1 class star
(30x).
Mizar A is considered to be an A1 class star (30x solar)
Mizar B is
considered to be an A7 class star (10x solar)
However, Mizar A itself is a very close binary pair consisting of two
A2 class stars which have approx. 2.5 solar masses each, and therefore an
actual visual luminosity of 23x solar for each star. This pair also has a
highly-eccentric orbit with a period of about 20.5 days.
This is not
our system.
Which then leaves the remaining stars in Mizar B.
Mizar B is also considered to be a binary pair at approx. 1.6 solar
masses each, which then classifies them in the lower category of F0,
corresponding to a visual luminosity of 6.38x solar.
Now enters the inverse-square law for intensity of light. In a
nutshell, if you move a light source twice as far away, its intensity
decreases by a factor of 4 (1/4 as bright), if you move it 3 times the
distance, its intensity decreases by a factor of 9. You can find the
mathematics on this law here: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/intensity.html
Because of this factor, there is something called "Terrestrial
Equivalent Orbit in AUs" which is the distance a planet must be from it’s
star, where it would get an equivalent solar intensity as Earth. For a
typical F0 class star this would be 2.55 AU. You will recall that AU
stands for Astronomical Unit, which is the distance of the Earth from Sol,
or approx. 93 million miles.
2.55 AU = 237.15 million miles, which is just beyond the orbit of Mars,
and right where we find the asteroid belt in our own solar system (between
2 and 4 AUs). Jupiter is located at 483.3 million miles or 5.2 AU. The
asteroid belt itself is the remains of a planet which used to orbit there
before a massive planetary collision long ago.
The primary binary components (Mizar A and Mizar B) are separated by
14.42 arc seconds, which at a distance of 78.1 light years, yields a
separation of 32 billion miles or 345 AU. By comparison, Pluto (the
outermost planet) is 39.5 AU from Sol. So while we have the smaller stars
of Mizar B locked in a binary orbit with the two larger stars of Mizar A,
we don't have to worry about either of the Mizar A components interfering
with conditions in the B region. Also, Mizar A and Mizar B take approx.
5000 years to orbit each other.
The Mizar stars themselves have unusual chemical makeups as a result of
fairly slow rotation, which then allows for quiet atmospheres and chemical
separation. The binary pair Mizar B are "metallic line stars" which means
that they are deficient in aluminum and calcium but high in silicon and in
rare earths like cerium and samarium.
Now that we've cleared up a bit more, let's take another look at
punkfloyd's original statement:
punkfloyd
December 18, 2001
>So Punkfloyd, I guess the
Marcabians don't have any problem with their star. Unless Mizar is
similarly unstable.
"Ugh. They do. Mizar is a *quintuple* star. Mizar is double and each of
its components is itself a double star. What's more teh whole setup spins
around yet another star - Alcor.
All 5 stars are hot white "main sequence" stars which means they are 10
to 30 brighter than the sun. The number of stars in the system also
indicates that there could be no planet rotating around the star with any
sort of a nice orbit. Gravitation should be way too uneven. It is believed
that earth-like lifeforms are very unlikely even around double stars -
climate will be changing too erratically. And here we have 5! And very
bright ones at that. I'd not rule life completely but it is for sure
nothing like our life.
punkfloyd"
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting to fall apart now isn't it?
Now look at the very first part of the post. He starts off the whole
thing by saying that there IS a problem with the star system. THAT is the
basic lie that sets-up the *whole* thing. If you buy that first lie, then
the rest slips in unnoticed. There is no problem with the Mizar
system.
The second part of the statement then contains some factual but slanted
data mixed with false data, and this is then followed up by a lot of
speculation including the qualifiers "indicates", "could be", "should be",
etc. It relies for it's effectiveness on people having misunderstoods.
Clear the MUs and the lies come into view.
By now you are no doubt beginning to see how this, and all the other
black propaganda campaigns, are based upon lies, and that when the lies
are exposed, the whole thing falls apart like snow melting in the
rain.
We haven't examined the gravitational factors yet, but by now, I think
that you may be starting to suspect what's really going on around
here... =======================================================
Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part IV
From: "Jontu"
Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology
Sent: February 18, 2002
The only point we haven't covered yet is the gravitation influences
in a multiple star system.
Punkfloyd:
"...The number of stars in
the system also indicates that there could be no planet rotating around
the star with any sort of a nice orbit. Gravitation should be way too
uneven."
Even though punkfloyd has thrown in a lot of
qualifiers such as "indicates", "nice orbit", "should be", etc., this
still appears to be a rather complicated issue. But again, that is only
when the basic
physics and mechanics are unknown or not
understood.
A binary star is composed of two component stars
separated by distance but coupled by gravity, which orbit around a common
"center of mass" located at a point in space between them.
Here is
a page which lets you play around with various binary orbits:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/guidry/java/binary/binary.html
The
java applet above views the hypothetical binary pair from directly
overhead, making discernment of their motions and relationship very easy.
From this angle, there is no question about the binary nature of the
stars, nor their orbital paths.
But our view from Earth of binary
stars is normally not from directly overhead. It is normally from a
shallow angle or even edge-on at the pair.
Binary stars are classed
according to their distance of separation from each other, such as very
close - less than 4 diameters; close - around 10 diameters; medium -
around 50 diameters; far - around 100 diameters; and very far - greater
than 200 diameters.
As covered previously, the pair Mizar A are a
very close pair in an eccentric orbit, meaning that at certain times, they
pass very close to each other. Below is a link to a NASA photograph of the
two stars of Mizar A showing their eccentric orbit. In the upper left hand
corner of the picture is the symbol for zeta and the number 1, This means
Mizar A. Zeta 2 would be Mizar B:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/9702/mizarA_npoi_big.gif
The
above photograph however, has been somewhat modified from actual. In
reality, the center star is not stationary. The two stars orbit around
each other as illustrated by the earlier java applet, but this was done
with the photograph to make viewing the orbital path easier. In reality,
the central star in the picture also has a similar orbit as the other one.
But you will also notice that the elliptical path shown is different than
the elliptical path from the java applet. The major axis of the ellipse
should be between the two masses, not at a right angle. This is because we
are viewing the pair from a shallow angle, and the elliptical path is
foreshortened.
When binary stars cannot be individually imaged as
above, they can be determined to be multiple stars by a couple of other
methods such as spectroscopic or astrometric analysis. Spectroscopic
refers to viewing (scopic) of spectra. Here is a page which explains
spectroscopic analysis of binary star systems: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/spectroscopic.html
Stars
determined to be binary pairs by use of the spectroscopic method are
referred to as spectroscopic binaries.
Where visual or
spectroscopic methods are inadequate, a third method can be used.
Astrometric refers to measuring distances (metric) of stars (astro), and
is a method of determining the existence of an unseen companion by its
gravitational influence on a star (or body) you can see and measure. Here
is a page which explains the astrometric method:
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/binaries/astrometric.html
Stars
determined to be binaries by the use of this method are called astrometric
binaries.
Neither of these last two methods are as easy or accurate
as direct visual imaging, but when viewing from the edge, you are left
with few options.
Some of the basics of the laws of gravity were
put forward by Issac Newton around 1690:
“Every mass in the Universe attracts every other with a force
proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to
their distance of separation squared.”
Product of their masses
means multiplication, mass A times mass B; inversely proportional means
reverse of, or a negative coefficient regarding: distance of separation
squared - the distance times itself. So while the attractive force remains
a constant function of the masses involved, the strength of the force
between the bodies drops off rapidly due to the squaring of the distance
between them.
So in essence, the greater the mass, the stronger the
force, but, the further away the mass, the weaker the force. Just like the
inverse-square law of luminosity covered in Part III, if you move
a mass twice as far away, its gravitational influence decreases by a
factor of 4 (1/4 as strong), if you move it 3 times the distance, its
force decreases by a factor of 9. Here is a page which explains the basics
of the inverse-square law including its application in determining
gravity:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html
So,
with some fairly simple calculations, we can determine some of the actual
gravitational forces involved in the Mizar system. We simply need to know
masses and distances.
You will recall from Part III that Mizar A
consists of two A2 class stars which would have an approximate mass of
2.5x solar each. If we were calculating the gravitational forces between
Mizar A1 (or Aa) and A2 (or Ab), we would multiply those two masses
together along with the gravitational constant G, then divide the
result by the square of the distance between them. Gravitational forces
are normally calculated using metric units (kilograms and meters), and are
expressed in Newtons.
Here is a page which explains the
gravitational formula:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/grav.html
And
here is a page which explains the units used in the gravitational
formula:
http://www.curtin.edu.au/curtin/dept/phys-sci/gravity/intermed/extra1.htm
Now
if we want to calculate the gravitational influence on a body in the Mizar
B system from the two stars of Mizar A, we could, for a rough analysis,
add the two masses of Mizar A together, and then use this combined mass as
one of the factors in the product of mass1 x mass2. So we will use a
combined mass of 5x solar to represent Mizar A in relation to a second
body in the Mizar B system of stars and planets, and we already know the
approximate distance between the A and B systems from part III, that being
32 billion miles or 345 AU. By comparison, Pluto (our outermost planet) is
39.5 AU from Sol.
The only thing we need now is to determine the
second mass we want to use in our
calculations.
Punkfloyd:
"...The number of stars in the
system also indicates that there could be no planet rotating around the
star with any sort of a nice orbit. Gravitation should be way too
uneven."
Alright, there's our answer. A planet orbiting one of
the Mizar B stars - Marcab.
Let's start by obtaining some standards
or references (a datum of comparable magnitude) by which we can compare
the gravitational forces within the Mizar system.
Let's first
calculate the gravitational force between Earth and Sol:
Mass 1
(Sol): 1.989e30 kg
Mass 2 (Earth): 5.972e24 kg
Distance (mean):
1.496e11 meters (93 million miles - 1 AU)
[Note: in the numbers
listed above, you will note the use of an "e" in the values. This is
scientific notation which is used to make large numbers smaller and more
manageable. The "e" represents a coefficient. For example, 1.5e3 means 1.5
x 10 to the third power (10x10x10) which equals 1500. An easy way to use
the number following the e is that it tells you how many places to the
right (or left for a negative coefficient) to move your decimal point. So
for the mass of Earth listed above(5.972), you would move the decimal
point 24 places to the right (add 21 zeros to the existing number, and
move the decimal point all the way to the right).]
Plugging these
numbers into our universal gravitation formula yields a result
of:
3.54011e22 Newtons. Let's call that FgSE (Sol -
Earth).
That is the strength of the gravitational attraction
between Earth and Sol, which keeps the Earth in its orbit around
Sol.
Next, let's calculate the gravitational force between the
Earth and Moon:
Mass 1 (Earth): 5.972e24 kg
Mass 2 (Luna):
7.35e22 kg
Distance (mean): 3.844e8 meters (238,852
miles)
Plugging those numbers into the universal gravitational
formula yields a result of:
1.9814e20 Newtons. Let's call that FgME
(Moon - Earth).
Even though it is about 178 times weaker than the
force between Sol and Earth, that is the strength of the gravitational
force which keeps the moon in its orbit, and produces the tides in the
oceans here on Earth. While FgSE is stronger, it is the moon's
gravitational influence which produces the most noticeable effect on
tides. Here is a page which explains why that is, and how to calculate the
effects on a planet of differing gravitational field strengths from
differing bodies in space:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tide.html
Now,
let's calculate the gravitational effects on Marcab generated by the Mizar
A masses (5x solar) at a distance of 32 billion miles. The only thing we
need to know is the approximate mass of Marcab the
planet...
-------------------------------------------------------
LRH
tape lecture 17 December 1954- History And Development of
Processes:
Female voice:
"This is the thing that's so
disappointing. These people that you mentioned have that - such terrific
intelligence of individual mind, this man - on Marcabian, being on a
planet you mentioned; and yet, they seem to lack, from what I've heard
of them, any basic goodness..."
LRH:
"You see, this planet's not
necessarily good or bad, it's just that the games which have evolved in
there are heavy planet-type games. They have a lot to do with space opera,
they have a lot to do with cops and robbers and so on, and their
technology is quite superior and quite advanced. It's the kind of a - you
see, a great intelligence doesn't necessarily denote either a great moral
principle or a freedom.
...The heavy, the heavy-planet boys are the
ones that, have occasionally attracted my great interest. They start
working immediately with radioactive stuff; they never go through a
fire stage. See, they never, never have the civilizing influence of
fire. ...The criminality of such a society is fantastic! The amount of
respect for the individual is zero. Such a civilization is the
civilization of Marcab."
-------------------------------------------------------
So
what is a heavy planet? A planet with more mass, more gravity, than Earth.
Radioactive materials are formed under great pressure, and a planet with
more mass than Earth (and therefore stronger gravitational forces), would
tend to be more abundantly possessed of these types of naturally-occurring
materials.
As I recall, Marcab is roughly 1.7x Earth's diameter,
and the density is a bit higher also. At 5.52 grams per cubic centimeter,
Earth has the highest density of all the planets in our solar system, so
we'll put Marcab's density at 6.0 grams per cubic centimeter. Based upon
these numbers, you would have a gravity on the surface of approx. 1.467x
that of Earth, so that a mass which weighed 100 lbs. on Earth would weigh
146.7 lbs., a 200 lb. man would weigh 293.4 lbs.
This would be a
sustained force of acceleration on an Earth body of 1.467 Gs, and by
comparison, shuttle pilots experience a sustained decelerative force of
about 1.5 Gs towards their feet during reentry. A person on a large roller
coaster would temporarily experience about 4 Gs, and a fighter pilot
pulling out of a sharp dive might experience 7 Gs or more.
Here is
a page that explains how to calculate a planet's gravitational pull at the
surface compared to Earth's: http://curriculum.calstatela.edu/courses/builders/lessons/less/les1/general/gravity.html
Next,
we can calculate the overall mass of the planet by multiplying the density
and the volume. First we would determine the volume based upon the 1.7x
diameter (which would be a radius of 1.35x). If we say Earth's radius is
equal to 1, this would give us a volume of 4.1888 and a radius of 1.35
would give us a volume of 10.306. This would be a volume of about 2.46x
that of Earth, and with a density of 1.087x, this gives us a mass of
roughly 2.674x that of Earth.
Mass of Earth: 5.972e24 kg x 2.674 =
1.5969e25 kg.
Now we can calculate gravitational attraction between
other bodies.
Punkfloyd:
"...The number of stars in the
system also indicates that there could be no planet rotating around the
star with any sort of a nice orbit. Gravitation should be way too
uneven."
Let's first start with the gravitational attraction
between Marcab and the two stars of Mizar A:
Mass1 (Mizar A - 5x
solar): 9.945e30 kg
Mass2 (Marcab): 1.5969e25 kg
Distance of
separation: 5.1499e13 meters (32 billion miles)
Equals 3.99402e18
Newtons.
Compare that to:
3.54011e22 Newtons (FgSE)
and
1.9814e20 Newtons (FgME)
That is over 8863 times weaker than
FgSE, and almost 50 times weaker than FgME.
So we can effectively
eliminate the two stars of Mizar A as having any significant gravitational
effect on a planet orbiting one of the Mizar B stars, and focus in on the
Mizar B system itself...
[Note: Part V of this series has not been written yet.]
|
