REPOST - Marcab, the misplaced planet - written by David Griffin (Jontu) Reposting done by Virginia McClaughry From: [email protected] (Jontu) Newsgroups: alt.clearing.technology Subject: Marcab, the misplaced planet Date: 2 Feb 2002 22:03:40 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Lines: 566 Message-ID: <[email protected]> NNTP-Posting-Host: 168.143.113.108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1012716220 19174 127.0.0.1 (3 Feb 2002 06:03:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: [email protected] NNTP-Posting-Date: 3 Feb 2002 06:03:40 GMT [Author's note: this is Part I in a series which was originally posted on the FZA forum beginning on 08 Jan 02] ------------------------------------------------------- Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part I Now that my little game of planetary poker with Scipher is complete, I thought I'd start showing my cards. I noticed that when I started putting attention on the the fact that Marcab is a real planet with a specific location, all manner of ruckus and counter-intention seemed to present itself. Almost like Tone Arm action was occurring. ; ) So, what turns it on will turn it off... 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 space. 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. 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 (funilly enough) a bit like the classic flying-saucer shape - disk shaped and thicker in the middle, thinner out at the edges. It is slightly eliptical, and the maximum diameter of our galaxy has been put at approximately 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. 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 oftentime 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. You can find the Greek alpabet here: http://www.dibonsmith.com/greek.htm 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 Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 08:20 pm "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 Friday, December 14, 2001 - 09:21 pm "Markab is an actual star, otherwise known as Alpha Pegasus." punkfloyd Wednesday, January 02, 2002 - 08:14 pm "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. Which brings up another interesting point... On the main RONS Org website, www.freezone.de which contains a lot of CBR material, you will find a mix of spellings also. On some of the pages the correct spelling "Marcab" is used, while on other pages "Markab" is used. The following pages all use the correct spelling - "Marcab": Tech Briefing 2 - 26 Oct 84 Tech Briefing 6 - Delivered in Sweeden, no date listed. Logical Planning (The New Civilization - OT Convention 88) - 05 Nov 88 The New Civilization Convention 88 - 05 Nov 88 UFO Lecture - 1990 The following pages all use the incorrect spelling - "Markab" Sector Ops Bulletin 1 - 27 Apr 82 Sector Ops Bulletin 11 - 08 Jun 82 Sector Ops Bulletin 13 - 01 Oct 82 Sector Ops Bulletin 18 - 19 Jan 84 Sector Ops Bulletin 19 - 20 Feb 84 Sector Ops Bulletin 20 - 21 Feb 84 Sector Ops Bulletin 21 - 23 Feb 84 Latest News in Sector 9 - Jan 86 Admin Briefing 2 - 29/30 Aug 87 Admin Briefing 4 - 07 Oct 89 Freezone.de Glossary 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). Principal Incidents on the Track, 27 Nov 59: "...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, consititute 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. Marcab Confederacy - various planets united into a very vast civilization which has come forward up through the last 200,000 years, 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. AUDITING COMM CYCLES, 6 August 1963: "...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. E-METER ACTIONS ERRORS IN AUDITING, 12 June 1961: "Marcab always had plan balanced economies." DIANETICS, SCIENTOLOGY AND SOCIETY, 4 Aug 1966: "He was cracking up airplanes on Marcab..." 3GA CRISS CROSS DATA, 25 Oct 1962 "...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. THE HELATROBUS IMPLANTS, 21 May 63 "...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." Meanwhile, over on Ralph's agent board, the subject of DAing myself and discussions about Marcabians had gotten it's very own thread started by Kevin Brady. Here is the beginning of that thread: You can take the Marcabs out of Scientology, but can you take the scientology out of the Marcabian myth? Kevin G. Brady (Journeyman) Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 07:33 pm ------------------------------------------------------- I am hot on this point all the time, but I'd like to have its own corner. What are the arguments for including what people find in their case as part of the tech, and can the tech be separated down to mechanisms without reference to specific case items? kgb punkfloyd Wednesday, December 12, 2001 - 08:20 pm ------------------------------------------------------- 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 on the hydrogen-fusing normal "main sequence" of stars and is about to leap into the abyss, in which it will quickly expand, slow its rotation, and become a much cooler orange giant (perhaps someday looking like Kornephoros in Hercules). It will then brighten to many times its current luminosity to die finally as a massive white dwarf like Sirius-B. That sure will give them something to worry about. punkfloyd ------------------------------------------------------- It was in response to the above, that I did the clarifying post regarding the star Markab, and the planet Marcab on the FZA forum: Posted: 2001-12-14 01:12 (EST) "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." For some strange reason, that statement seems to have produced a bit of a comm lag. Even 7 hrs. later, we find the following: punkfloyd Friday, December 14, 2001 - 08:39 am -------------------------------------------------------- ...Is he, by any chance, aware that the Star Markab is 200+ times brighter and 4 times heavier than our Sun and is thus utterly incapable of supporting any life similar to ours? Any alien stupid enough to be around Markab without a heavy protection suit will be surely fried to a crisp. punkfloyd Anonymous Friday, December 14, 2001 - 08:47 pm ------------------------------------------------------- Punkfloyd, I didn't realize that Marcab was a star. I figured it must be a planet or how could life exist. punkfloyd Friday, December 14, 2001 - 09:21 pm ------------------------------------------------------- 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. There is indeed an evidence that there are planets around that star but they are most likely gas giants like Jupiter. Fun fact: US Navy had a repair ship USS "Markab" during WW2. It served in the same area as LRH. By the way, the volcanoes listed in OT3 didn't exist at that time either. So perhaps we have to consider the location of the "evil planet" is only approximately in that direction. Squirrel Red One Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 01:10 am ------------------------------------------------------- so there is the psychologetic theory that perhaps Markab made its entrance into Scientology in the wake of a ship by that name. I have pointed out before that Xenu appeared a year or so after LRH was in Rhodesia, home country of the then illegal group Zanu, which rules that country to this day. Perhaps they are Markabians in disguise. Red One, President of the IASq John Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 01:21 am ------------------------------------------------------- Psychologetic? Or perhaps he just made the whole thing up. Anonymous Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 01:37 am ------------------------------------------------------- Or maybe the Zanus served aboard the Marcab? punkfloyd Saturday, December 15, 2001 - 05:08 am ------------------------------------------------------- USS Markab home page: http://www.isni.net/~wjcampbell/MarkabAD21.html also see http://www.destroyers.org/AD/AD-Histories/h-ad-21.htm punkfloyd Ralph Hilton (Ralph) Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 01:44 pm ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 02:54 pm ------------------------------------------------------- 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. Does anybody know where the popular association of Xenu with markabians come from? It seems to be apocryphal.. (I also recall reading something to the effect of Markab being in opposition to Galactic Confederation... Don't recall where. Could be as apocryphal) punkfloyd ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------- 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. From Auditing Comm Cycles, 06 Aug 1963: "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 schnaps. Continuing now... Ralph Hilton (Ralph) Sunday, December 16, 2001 - 04:35 pm ------------------------------------------------------- The first association of Markab with Xemu was by Bill Robertson. See www.fzint.org/downloads/cbr.zip (5Mb) Then finally, after 4 days, we have antmanbee who had earlier tried to run an op on me, posting the following: Justin White (Antmanbee) Tuesday, December 18, 2001 - 12:57 am ------------------------------------------------------- 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 Tuesday, December 18, 2001 - 04:25 am ------------------------------------------------------- >So Punkfloyd, I guess the Marcabians don't have any problem with their star. Unless Mizar is similarly 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 arouns 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 ------------------------------------------------------- And this is the point at which I will end part I, and pick up in part II... THE HELATROBUS IMPLANTS, 21 May 63 "Man's greatest trouble in solving his own problems, see, he didn't have enough on the ball to face up to the isness of existence. And the reasons for that are very plain, short, succinctly stated. That case which evinces the greatest unreality about things is that case most subject to bank solidification in an effort to remember." Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part II 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. Now if you are following the various messages being posted, you will notice that Scipher has had a bit of trouble remembering exactly what point he was supposed to attack me on - the location of Marcab, or the environmental conditions thereon. I guess that's what you call a two-pronged approach. ; ) [Note: there is another post I will do which clarifies the above, since many of the readers here are unaware of what transpired on the FZA forum.] Now what seems to have started this whole thing was a simple little post I did on 14 Dec 01 regarding Marcab, it's ruling body, and relation to the Galactic Federation. I figured "I'll just clear up a little confusion by telling them how to spell it correctly and where it's located" - No big deal. Apparently, it was a big deal to SOMEONE. :o Here is a part of my original statement which can be found on page 5 of the thread "Jontu has arrived": Jontu Posted: 2001-12-14 01:12 ------------------------------------------------------- "...certain enslaver agents are now attempting to exploit this confusion. So, I now wish to clear up this confusion for one and all. 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 Galatic 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..." Apparently, I underestimated the amount of charge on that particular subject. ; ) 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." Now my simple statement above, somehow seems to have become a bit twisted over on Ralph's board. I wonder why that happened? From HCOPL 21 Nov 72, PR Series 18, How to Handle Black Propaganda: "...In the face of a black propaganda campaign, such releases are twisted..." Oh, thanks Ron. Well, let's just put our attention back on that area again and see what happens shall we? punkfloyd Tuesday, December 18, 2001 - 04:25 am ------------------------------------------------------- >So Punkfloyd, I guess the Marcabians don't have any problem with their star. Unless Mizar is similarly 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 arouns 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. And then the next day, as covered in an earlier post, I had Scipher sending me a message along the exact same lines: Scipher Posted: 2001-12-19 10:05 ------------------------------------------------------- Hello Jontu, Sorry to bother you with this question. I have been an amateur astronomer back at school. Funnily, I own a ‘Mizar’ model telescope, and I am aware that Mizar is a quadruple star. I was surprised when you named Mizar as Markab’s star, and I am curious as to how such a complex star can support humanoid life forms. How does it work out? How do the stars look from Markab? Perhaps you were referring to Alcor, which is a star that is also seen from Teegeack as being the middle star in the handle of the Big Dipper? It is 13 times brighter than Sol, but with a farther orbit I would guess organic life is possible on a planet in that system. The ancient Greeks used to test eyesight by looking at the middle star in the Big Dipper's handle. If one could distinguish that there are two stars there (Mizar and Alcor) then that person’s eyesight was considered good. I hope that you might find it possible to satisfy my curiosity in this matter. If for any reason you would prefer not to answer, I would understand this too. Thank you! ARC, Scipher ------------------------------------------------------- But you will notice that even Scipher's attempt is relying on the earlier hypothetical scenario created by the enslaver working group of which "punkfloyd" is a nym. So now it is time to deconstruct punkfloyd's post, which is the basic on this particular chain. From 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 teh 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..." Now that some of the basic terms are cleared, it is possible to see something else. I think our dyslexic punkfloyd meant to say "white hot" instead of "hot white". Oops. The impression they were trying to create was that anything near the star (or stars) would be burned to a cinder. Of course, as ususual, 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 flourescent 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? Flourescent 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. Flourescent 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 flourescent 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 (now if I take the liberty of correcting punkfloyd's little bout of dsylexia) "All 5 stars are white hot "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... ------------------------------------------------------- THE HELATROBUS IMPLANTS, 21 May 63 "Man's greatest trouble in solving his own problems, see, he didn't have enough on the ball to face up to the isness of existence. And the reasons for that are very plain, short, succinctly stated. That case which evinces the greatest unreality about things is that case most subject to bank solidification in an effort to remember. That's a technical statement I just made and has a lot to do with your engram running. It's directly proportional. His effort to remember increases the solidity of his bank, which is painful to him, which then brings about his statement concerning unreality. See, that's proportional. The amount of unreality evinced by a case, then, is proportional to the amount of solidity caused in his time track by his efforts to remember. If his bank goes solid every time he tries to remember something this becomes painful, so then he counters this by saying it is unreal." Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part III 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 its 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 interferring with 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 Tuesday, December 18, 2001 - 04:25 am ------------------------------------------------------- >So Punkfloyd, I guess the Marcabians don't have any problem with their star. Unless Mizar is similarly 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 arouns 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 ------------------------------------------------------- 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... ------------------------------------------------------- HCOPL 21 Nov 72 PR Series 18 How to Handle Black Propaganda "...Where an attacker lacks the physical means to of destroying others and where his own purpose would fail if disclosed, the attacks become covert. He uses word of mouth, press media, any communication channel to spit his venom. He hides himself as the source; he makes the verbal attack seem logical or real or proven. He counts on the utterances being picked up or distorted and passed on by the more base people in society. This is black propaganda. It is intended to reduce a real or imagined enemy, hurt his income and deny him friends and support. ...Black propaganda is essentially a fabric of lies. ...Sooner or later such stories are found to be not true. ONE false story can destroy the credit of the teller. Now who listens? ...The usual action is a counterpropaganda campaign *based on truth*. It is a long-to-find and hard-learned fact that people who engage in black propaganda have big bursting crimes to hide. They do not have *little* crimes. They have BIG ones. One's own ability to confront evil may be too low to really grasp the black propagandist's crimes or believe they exist. Such people are often SANCTIMONIOUS hypocrites... ...But under all this are *real* crimes. Not stealing apples or pinching pennies as a child. *Real* crimes like extortion, blackmail, embezzlement and mass murder are sitting in their closets. Believe that. For in the course of your counterattack you may dispair of ever finding anything. But you will find it. ...Bad guys tend to get rid of good guys. Sometimes for what they consider good reasons, sometimes for imagined reasons, sometimes because the bad guy just can't *stand* a decent, bright person. ...Therefore it is *vital* to handle the matter. one can't just hope it all go away. It won't. It will get disasterous to the degree that it is not handled. The less handling, the more disasterous." Marcab, the misplaced planet - Part IV 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 coeficient regarding: distance of separation squared - the distance times itself. So while the attactive 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 determinging 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... 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 coeficient. 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 coeficient) 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 yeilds 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 yeilds 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 noticable 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... ------------------------------------------------------- HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESSES: QUESTION AND ANSWER PERIOD 17 December 1954: ...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 criminal action that you would consider criminal action. 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 which 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/g... 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... ------------------------------------------------------- THE HELATROBUS IMPLANTS, 21 May 63 "Man's greatest trouble in solving his own problems, see, he didn't have enough on the ball to face up to the isness of existence. And the reasons for that are very plain, short, succinctly stated. That case which evinces the greatest unreality about things is that case most subject to bank solidification in an effort to remember. That's a technical statement I just made and has a lot to do with your engram running. It's directly proportional. His effort to remember increases the solidity of his bank, which is painful to him, which then brings about his statement concerning unreality. See, that's proportional. The amount of unreality evinced by a case, then, is proportional to the amount of solidity caused in his time track by his efforts to remember. If his bank goes solid every time he tries to remember something this becomes painful, so then he counters this by saying it is unreal. This fellow that tells you, "I don't believe in past lives" is saying, "My time track goes solid when I try to remember." And it has an awful lot to do with you as an auditor, because that case that evinces great unreality must be given very gentle handling and you cannot run an engram on that case. Not only - you must not run an engram on that case, because the bank will go solid."