Dual Suns

March 10, 2010

Hello Therese:

I am very happy to have this info . . . new to me.

Personal comment:

In my almost 40 years of practice, I've developed a protocol-set I

use when testing and tracking my patients. What is interesting to me

here is that I've found a " digital switch " deep within the human nervous

system that I utilize when doing my manual muscle testing and

progressing patterns. Simply, that switch is binary - on or off (weak or

strong). It would make sense to me if there were two Suns - two hearts

at the core of this solar system. It may be a stretch, but we may want

to think in terms of one being tuned to matter, while the other is tuned

to anti-matter (just a wild ass guess).

I also found Cruttenden's discussion of static vs. dynamic interesting.

With my work, memory patterns present in the nervous under either a

static or dynamic heading . . . and they track differently. Sorry to be

'going on' while going off topic, but this really strikes home for me.

Thanks for sending this link.

Warmly, John

===========================================

Therese Hamilton wrote:

Hi Dave and all,

If anyone is still around on this list, you might find this note to Dave

interesting. Dave, remember a while ago there was a conversation on this

list where we were discussing Walter Cruttenden's LOST STAR OF MYTH AND

TIME? This book and the accompanying web site of the Binary Research

Institute sets forth the theory that our Sun is actually part of a binary

system. The web site now has some very interesting supporting math to

support that theory. I tend to believe that our dual star would be a large

brown dwarf. Apparently these can be impossible to see.

http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/

<http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/>

But the reason I'm writing this note, Dave, is that it suddenly hit me: If

we are indeed part of a binary system, then this means our entire solar

system is curving through space (as noted on the Binary Research web

site), that means that the precessing equinoxes are not due to an earth

wobble, but to the shifting stellar sky as our system moves in an

elliptical path around its dual star. So any true sidereal zodiac **must**

be marked by stars because the stars keep shifting in relation to the

solar system.

In turn, the tropical zodiac is only an insignificant little system

attached to the revolution of the earth around the Sun. it remains

eternally fixed within the solar system. Measuring the in-solar-system

movement of the eqinoxes shows there is no " precession. " In binary theory

with supporting math, the shifting is due to the entire solar system moving

through space. The question then is, " Is there really a tropical zodiac for

astrology, or is it simply a convenient measuring device for astronomers? "

Are tropical astrologers only seeing the sidereal signs as Cyril Fagan

believed??

And how can a (sidereal) zodiac somehow operate and be related to a sky

that keeps shifting in relation to our solar system?

`

Thoughts to dwell upon. And no, I can't perform the math of all this

myself. I have to depend on the research of others. If Juan Revilla is

reading this, we'd all appreciate his comments.

Thanks,

Therese

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature

database 4932 (20100310) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

March 11, 2010

At 05:51 PM 3/10/2010 -0300, Dr. John D. Andre wrote:

>Hello Therese:

>

>I am very happy to have this info . . . new to me.

Hi John,

And I'm happy you're still with us!

>You wrote:

> In my almost 40 years of practice, I've developed a protocol-set I

>use when testing and tracking my patients. What is interesting to me

>here is that I've found a " digital switch " deep within the human nervous

>system that I utilize when doing my manual muscle testing and

>progressing patterns. Simply, that switch is binary - on or off (weak or

>strong). It would make sense to me if there were two Suns - two hearts

>at the core of this solar system. It may be a stretch, but we may want

>to think in terms of one being tuned to matter, while the other is tuned

>to anti-matter (just a wild ass guess).

A guess that might be valid.These concepts are all so interesting. We know

the universe itself operates on principles of duality, so why not the

human body and our solar system?

>

>I also found Cruttenden's discussion of static vs. dynamic interesting.

>With my work, memory patterns present in the nervous under either a

>static or dynamic heading . . . and they track differently. Sorry to be

>'going on' while going off topic, but this really strikes home for me.

>Thanks for sending this link.

It all relates, John, and your work supports the dual sun principle. I hope

we see more research on this in the future. In the meantime I'll try to

wrap my head around the concept that the first point of sidereal Aries

remains in the same place in the sky and in sidereal calculation (and works

in interpretation) even though the solar system spins away from that

stellar point through the centuries. Or do we have to use the nice compact

(and perhaps nonexistent) tropical zodiac??

Does the energy of the signs come only from the stars??? If we use tropical

signs, doesn't their nature have to change as the solar system curves

through the universe in the binary model?

It's all mind boggling, isn't it? I'm thinking I need a three dimensional

model to understand it all.

Blessings,

Therese

March 11, 2010

Hello, Therese, and all who participate in this discussion. Yes, I do remember

those conversations. I have the book about Sirius and did enjoy reading it. I

have a three dimensional depiction of local space --- my Universe book has a

depiction of all stars within 12 to 15 light years of us plotted on a Cartesian

scale with distance above and below the Earth-Sun plane indicated grapically.

From what I found, 1) Sirius has some serious (no pun) proper motion against the

star background, yet it always remains in Cancer as it has most of its motion

defined in terms of declination (it moves up and down), 2) this motion is about

5 degrees off the perpendicular to our Earth-Sun plane, 3) we receive a

tremendous burst of energy from Sirius every 50 years when its primary and

secondary stars align, and 4) Sirius (only 8+ light years away) has a

significant gravitational effect upon us and the solar system (it defines the

point of closest approach to the Sun for sme of the planets --- they align with

Sirius).

From what I can develop for information, it would appear that Sirius and its

companion are in a orbital pattern with an unseen brown/dark star about 1.5

light years closer to us than Sirius, this pattern being 85 degrees or so from

our Earth-Sun plane. This explains the reason for Sirius moving north/south

with significant motion while not move away from it general position in Cancer.

This doesn't fit with your statements, Therese, but it does indicate that a

Sidereal Zodiac can stay in one place.

While we haven't talked much on this list in some time about Sirius, or Sidereal

signs and where/how their meanings come to us in terms of their source and

structure, that doesn't indicate that I haven't been pursuing my curiosity and

interest in the subject.

A couple of months ago I came across a posting on ACT in the section on the

qualities of time. There was a reference to a paper by a Russian scientist

named Kozyrev -- some 40 pages of calculations about what time is and how it

behaves and can be affected by various forces. I read it, I wrote a brief

synopsis of the paper which was intended to make it easier for Astrologers to

understand (without all of the math). Now, I writing a paper about what it

means to Astrologers. Among all of his proofs and confirmation by the math of

Newton and Einstien and their theories lie some interesting news. Thoughts have

energy, energy can impact time, ideas appear everywhere simultaneously

independent of time, etc. It will take a bit of time to put it all forth

clearly. But, the bottom line is that the universe is sentient. Jim Eshelman

told me this last year, and I told him it wasn't an answer I was prepared to

accept. But, that may change as I work my way though this astounding paper and

its experiments. It may not fully explain for me the basis of the Sidereal

zodiac, but then, it might.

Meanwhile, I am occasionally playing with the idea of expressing the Sidereal

signs merely in terms of Fire-Earth-Air-Water qualities without all of the

descriptive verbiage that has become attached to them over the ages. In this

sense, this approach fits with the small library of Joytish books I now have and

the sparse approach they take to sign meanings. I have no idea if this will fit

with me, so don't get your hopes up, Therese. I may remain a " no signs for me "

astrologer. Dave

March 11, 2010

>So any true sidereal zodiac **must**

be marked by stars because the stars keep shifting in relation to the

solar system.

Could the Hindu teachings of the Nakshatras be useful in this theory?

liberator_9

--- On Wed, 3/10/10, Dr. John D. Andre <drjdandre wrote:

Dr. John D. Andre <drjdandre

Dual Suns

Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 2:51 PM

Â