Content by Bobby Matherne
Top Reviewer Ranking: 2,418,943
Helpful Votes: 3
Learn more about Your Profile.
Reviews Written by
Bobby Matherne "Bobby Matherne" (New Orleans, LA)
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Healing the evils of latent hyperopia and acquired myopia, 14 Mar. 2014
If someone has just told you
that so-and-so is saying something bad about you,
do not try to justify yourself in the least
regard to what has been reported to you;
"He must not be fully informed
about all the other things that
could be said about me; otherwise
he would not have limited himself to that."
From "Virtue and Happiness" — The Manual of Epictetus
Dr. Kaisu Viikari, M.D., Ph. D. in Ophthalmology has been called a "hausfrau" (housewife) or "society lady with a hobby" in various screeds of her critics over the past four decades, but she was more than what her detractors said about her. She was and remains a vibrant force for healing the evils of latent hyperopia and acquired myopia in our time. Her book still sells to people all over the world who are interested is saving the eyesight of themselves, their family, and friends. The eye professionals can remain clueless as to the value of her work, but only to the detriment of the eyes and overall health of their patients.
Even at the age of 92 and in frail health, she has mastered emailing and English in addition to her native Finnish and early exposure to German. In a December 9, 2012 email to me and edited by me for clarity, she wrote:
Here's why I sent you the journal page: they were speaking about the thickening of the lens in the cases of strong myopias without any understanding of why the intra-ocular pressure nowadays is so increased!
Apparently these so-called professionals are unaware of what I have emphasized in my writings, explaining in detail how in cases of strong myopia the anterior chamber angle becomes shallower and makes the filtration of the intra-ocular fluids more difficult.
Even more important is the case in angle closure glaucoma, in hyperopes. These same professionals know about, but do not understand that even stronger plus (+ Diopter) lenses should be prescribed for such patients. This is such a simple solution which only requires that patients wear them. The alternative is glaucoma, which is dangerous to eye health, expensive to treat, but, to the doctor's advantage, keeps patients coming back for treatment.
What's wrong with glaucoma drops to reduce the pressure? She wrote later on December 10, 2012:
There are, in several places in Panacea that I mentioned this connection between hyperopia and the intra-ocular pressure. Already on pages 362, 363, again and again and on p.369 it is, underlined, said that it is a real professional bungling not to understand this basic etiology! The worst thing is the eye-doctors who immediately prescribe eye-drops for glaucoma, disdaining the simple correction of plus diopter lenses!
Here is Case History No. 1536 as an example of how Dr. Kaisu has treated patients who came to her after so-called successful operations, but without appropriate adjustment to their lenses.
[page 362] The poor final result of many operations that have otherwise gone well must undoubtedly be attributed, at least in part, to lack of glasses. Case history No. 1536, a married lady, born in 1906 is an example ; During the course of a single day the vision in her left eye became blurred, accompanied by severe pain. This seems to have been an acute glaucoma attack. The following day the patient was admitted to an eye clinic on the instructions of her local doctor and at that time her intraocular pressure was 50. She was treated with pilocarpine, the pressure fell to 20 mmHg and ten days later she was operated on (post-iridectomy conditions in the eye). After the operation, drops were administered for three weeks, but gradually the eye became blind. One year before the operation an optician had prescribed reading glasses +3.5 and +3.75. No change was made in the glasses after the operation. Three years after the operation the patient came to see me because her optician had refused to order her new spectacles. She still had no distant glasses. Examination showed that the refraction in the eye that had not been operated on was at least +4.(5) and that visus, fundus, pressure and visual fields were normal.
There are many more examples from Dr. Viikari's case work in this book. It is literally a treasure trove of information about treating eye patients. Especially important is the cases involving migraine headaches which she was able to relieve by adjusting the patients's eyeglass prescriptions. People came to her from all over Europe for relief from persistent and often un-treatable cases of migraines, and she says that she treated over 2,000 such cases in her surgery (doctor’s office) in Turku, Finland.
In a July 22, 2011 email Dr. Viikari wrote me, "Contact lenses are the death of all relaxation of the ciliary cramp. They are a straitjacket!" Do you remember wearing eyeglasses and taking them off for a few minutes to "rest your eyes"? Can't do that with contact lenses, can you? I recall my own reactions to wearing contact lenses prompted me to discard them quickly. When Lasik surgery came around, I was skeptical as to its efficacy, and Dr. Viikari's advice was to avoid it. From reports of several of our children who have had the expensive Lasik surgery and are now unable to see clearly without glasses, I am glad I skipped that surgery. Instead, based on Dr. Viikari's recommendations, I began wearing +D lenses (aka reading glasses) and discarded my -2D lenses. Within 3 months, I could drive and read street signs during daylight hours without any corrective lenses. I use +.5 D lenses while working on my computer screens, +2D for reading, and for night driving, I use -1D lenses.
Albert Einstein once said, "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." He was not derogating authority per se, only a respect which disengages one's own thinking ability, a respect which is followed blindly in pursuit of monetary goals, instead of a pursuit of truth in general and the pursuit of patients' well-being in particular, as Dr. Viikari did during her lifetime work in research and patient treatment. Unfortunately, those journal authorities who denied her work's publication have done a great disservice to the thousands upon thousands of patients in the world who are unknowingly mistreated with eye operations, drugs, lasers, contact lenses, etc.
This is a working review of the large tome of Panacea which I plan to add to as time goes on. To keep up to date with any changes, simply subscribe to my monthly Issues of DIGESTWORLD.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Earth may Shake, Rattle, and Roll but it no longer Wobbles, 19 July 2013
The Earth may Shake, Rattle, and Roll but it no longer Wobbles on its axis since Walter Cruttenden has shown that the Wobble WAG(footnote 1) is an unnecessary hypothesis for which no evidence has ever been presented except for the Precession of the Equinox. Thus far the Wobble Hypothesis has only explained the one thing it was made up to explain. Walter Cruttenden's data evinces a Binary Star Hypothesis which explains everything that the ad hoc Wobble one did with none of its anomalies and errors. He presents us with serious evidence that we live in a binary star system consisting of our Sun, namely Sol, and Sirius which revolve completely around each other in elliptical orbits once every 24,000 years.
We have each been like a grown-up born with only one parent who suddenly discovers the other parent. Stars, like humans, like to have companions. A star without a companion is as rare as a human adult without a companion, spouse, or co-parent. And now our forgotten parent, the star Sirius, lost in myth and time, has returned, and we may feel whole once again. That is the main message of this fine book(footnote 2).
[page v] This book has been in the making for over 5000 years. Bits and pieces of it have been pressed into cuneiform tablets or hidden in the myth and folklore of lost civilizations on nearly every continent. It has been hinted at by the ancient Babylonians, embedded in the star shafts of the Great Pyramid, and made into fable by Plato and the Greeks. World scriptures from East to West make veiled reference to it and even the captured Hebrew, Daniel, once foresaw it in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. But it was the Mayans -- relentless keepers of the ancient calendars -- who prophesied that it would be revealed by 2012.
Cruttenden investigated ancient calendars and discovered that the cycle of ages was thought to be due to a mutual orbiting of our Sun with another star. In modern terminology that would mean we live in a binary star system. If we do, then why is this not known? We have huge telescopes like the Hubble Space Telescope that should be able to locate our binary companion somewhere in the sky. But, like the Purloined Letter of Poe's fiction, the companion star is not hidden from us -- rather, it is the brightest object in the night sky and a star that is renown in myth and legend. So why have our best modern scientists not revealed this fact about Sirius to us? Do they have blinders on?
Why do horses wear blinders? You never see horses on wagons in the Old West with blinders on, but you see horses pulling wagons in the cities of the nineteenth century with blinders on. The reason is that horses are spooked by shadows, and in the open plains of the Old West, you had very few shadows, whereas in cities of the same time, shadows were everywhere. Thus, it became prudent to put blinders on a horse which had to pull a wagon through a city. Scientists are afraid of shadows also -- for them a shadow is any explanation that lies outside of their current way of viewing the world -- so their blinders keep them focused on what their colleagues accept as the correct view.
In his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn wrote about the blinders of scientists and even gave a specific name for the blinders: paradigms. A paradigm, according to Kuhn, is what scientists sees through their blinders. Here's my summary of a paradigm from my review of his book:
A paradigm can be like a dam holding back the flood waters of heresy or it can be a stone wall which deflects the arrows of anomalies from penetrating its sanctum sanctorum. A paradigm can lubricate the everyday processes of science and it can prevent any paradigmatic anomalies or deviancies from ever leading to a newer and more robust science. A paradigm can be a boon or a boner, a safe haven for productive work or a neurotic shelter from the real world.
When Copernicus re-discovered the ancient's heliocentric view of the Earth's orbit, he posited the occurrence of a 24-hour day to the Earth's rotation, the 365 day year to the Earth's orbit around the Sun, and Precession of the Equinox to a wobble of the Earth on its axis. In other words, Copernicus moved us from a geocentric view of the Earth with the Sun moving around it, to a heliocentric view with the Earth moving around the Sun. But his explanations for the day, the year, and the Great Year (one cycle of the Precession of the Equinox) were all geocentric, in other words, each of the three explanations had its root in a motion of the Earth: a rotation, an orbit, and a wobble. This initial postulation of a wobble causing the Precession of the Equinox by Copernicus has matured into a set of scientific blinders, a paradigm, which has resisted all assaults upon it over the years. It has become a fortress. Each time a leak is found in its walls, a mathematician is dispatched to plug up the breach with new terms and factors in the equations and soon every scientist rests easy once again in their fortress sheltered from attacks from the outside.
If the Earth has a wobble and the only evidence for it is the Precession of the Equinox, what are we to think if someone shows that the very same evidence fits better with a binary star system explanation? A reasonable person would want immediately to investigate the evidence in light of the new explanation to determine whether the wobble or binary star hypothesis fits the data better. Anyone without blinders on would certainly do that. But the very scientists, upon whom we rely to tell us how our world works, have blinders on which prevent them from seriously examining any alternate hypothesis. Instead, they declaim any alternate hypothesis which lies outside their current paradigm and throw derision instead of examination upon it. Often they will harshly criticize a new hypothesis based upon some colleagues's reviews of it, not bothering even to examine the new hypothesis themselves.
Walter Cruttenden re-discovered the ancient theory or hypothesis that the Great Year was due to the Sun revolving around a companion star. This would mean correcting Copernicus' view that the cause of the Precession of the Equinox was geocentric, that is, due to a wobble of the Earth, and affixing the cause to a heliocentric one: the motion of the Sun around its companion! This is not an endeavor that establishment scientists would take to kindly. It is as if some has found huge holes in the foundation of their fortress! What should they do: abandon the fortress or plug the holes? Well, the choice is easy. They have already plugged all the holes to every colleague's satisfaction, so they simply choose to ignore the deviants who proclaim that their fortress is doomed to extinction.
And yet, is it not tempting to see that our day is due to a motion of the Earth around itself, our year to a motion of the Earth around the Sun, and our Great Year to a motion of the Sun around its companion? No need for some ad hoc postulation of a wobble of the Earth with all its holes which need to be plugged up. A nice clean start, a break with Copernicus's bad guess, and a new view of our cosmos. This is the prospect which Walter Cruttenden offers us in this book. For a close up look at his theory and its implications, a DVD is available, which was first shown on PBS, narrated by James Earl Jones. A short clip of this DVD can be seen and your own copy of it can ordered from The Great Year website.
How did we get this concept of a wobble inextricably interwoven with the Precession of the Equinox? It began with Newton's application of his theory of gravity to the problem. He saw that the forces of gravity would act unevenly on the Earth and cause it to wobble as a spinning top does when it slows down and gets slightly off-center. This top wobble is call "precession." We have come to believe and accept without doubt, since Newton's time, that the Earth must wobble or precess like a top and that is what causes the Precession of the Equinox. You can't have one without the other! Two maps tied together in one magic word, precession, and we have assumed that they must be the cause of each other, up until now -- up until Walter Cruttenden began to question this scientific sleight-of-hand and to show that the reality of the Precession of the Equinox can be better explained by the Binary Star hypothesis. One must always beware of an ad hoc explanation like the Earth's wobble whose only evidence is the very thing it is called upon to explain.
[page 84] Newton theorized that the gravitational forces created by the Sun and Moon acted unevenly on this oblate sphere (Earth), causing the planet to slowly wobble like a top over thousands of years, producing the observable we call "precession." So it was at this point that the term Precession of the Equinox, used to describe the motion of the equinox through the zodiac, morphed into just "precession," a term used to describe a mechanical process of an off-center spinning body. The latter definition is now much better known than the former, consequently when any scientists now hears the word "precession" he immediately thinks of the gyroscopic motion of a top and automatically considers this to the cause of the observable of the "Precession of the Equinox." This semantics issue is an obscure point but one that I believe has led to much confusion, causing many to leave the theory of the Precession of the Equinox unquestioned. Can one really doubt that precession is caused by precession if the name is the same?
In their amazing book, Hamlet's Mill, Giorgio de Santillana and Hertha von Dechend wrote about a huge mythical mill owned by Amlodhi which ground out gold in one age, salt in another, and sand and rock in another. The myth points to two women who turned the mill. These can now be identified thanks to Cruttenden as Sol (our Sun) and Sirius (its companion star system).
[page 88] Another interesting feature of this myth is that it often involves two giant maidens, Fenja and Menja, who are required to turn this odd sort of time machine (mill) because it cannot be moved or even budged by any human force. The big question is who or what are Fenja and Menja. They are not human because they can turn the mill. But are they gods? Of course, the ancients referred to the stars as gods. Could these then be two astronomical bodies responsible for turning the seasons of precession?
Drawing by Bobby Matherne showing the relative positions of Sol and Sirius as they newly enter the Grand Center or Golden Age, This drawing combines information scattered thru the book, Designed by and Copyright 2005 by Bobby Matherne
Can be seen in digest05b.
In this drawing we show relative positions of Sol and Sirius as they newly enter the Grand Center or Golden Age. They are both speeding up as they approach each other as if eager to meet again after their long stay in the Dark Ages of Iron (or Sand and Rocks of the Hamlet's Mill myth). The present year of 2005 is positioned as we come out of the Dark Ages. The copyright date of this book is listed as 2006 and also as Dwapara 306 according to Vedic tradition. Dwapara corresponds to the Bronze Age in other methods of reckoning. Swami Sri Yukteswar pointed to the motion of our Sun around another star back in 1894 as the cause of the Precession of the Equinox. (Page 50)
[page 101] The Indian astronomers went even further, giving a physical reason for how the dual star or binary motion might allow the rise and fall of human consciousness to occur. They said that the Sun (with the Earth and other planets) traveled along its set orbital path with its companion start, it would cyclically move close to, then away from, a point in space referred to as Vishnunabhi, a supposed magnetic center or "grand center". They implied that being close to this region caused subtle changes in human consciousness that brought about the Golden Age, and conversely, our separation from it resulted in an age of great darkness, the Kali Yuga or Dark Age. "When the Sun in its revolution around its dual comes to the place nearest to this grand center, ... (an event which takes place when the autumnal equinox comes to the first point of Aries), dharma, the mental virtue, becomes so much developed that man can easily comprehend all, even the mysteries of the Spirit."
What evidence is there to support the claims of Cruttenden and these Indian astronomers that the precession is due to a binary star system versus the spinning top wobble (lunisolar theory)? Spinning tops do not speed up, for one thing, while the precession has been speeding up for the past several hundred years.
[page 109] And here at the Binary Research Institute we have found that lunar rotation equations do not support lunisolar theory, nor does the Earth's motion relative to the Perseids meteor shower support the theory. We have also found that precession is actually accelerating and acts more like a body that follows Kepler's laws (in an elliptical orbit -- RJM note: See above diagram) than a wobbling top that should be slowing down. We have put forth at least half a dozen circumstantial arguments indicating that precession is a result of something other than local forces. [RJM: as the lunisolar theory claims for its basis]
Usually a theory in its decadence requires stretches of logic and plausibility to explain itself, such as happened to the now defunct theory of phlogiston which survived all assaults against it by the oxygen theory and finally went down to an ignominious defeat, never to be heard from again. Thousands of establishment scientists believed phlogiston was given off into the air during combustion, while we know now instead that it is oxygen which was absorbed. Rather a dramatic difference in theories, isn't it? Phlogiston was like negative oxygen. And the supporters of the phlogiston theory fought to the bitter end against the demise of their theory. Science won out against science. It was a bitter victory. We may expect a similar battle before the Binary Star theory of the Precession of the Equinox replaces the lunisolar theory, but replace it, it will because the data and simplicity of the Binary Star theory is similar to the oxygen theory which replaced the complicated phlogiston theory (3).
[page 114] The lunisolar theory, failing to account for any other reference frames, is a de facto static Sun and solar system model. It therefore requires any and all changes in the orientation of the Earth to the fixed stars to be attributed strictly to local forces. The binary model, on the other hand, is not dependent on massive local forces to twist the Earth backward on its axis because it allows that the Earth's change in orientation (relative to objects outside the solar system) could be due to the geometric effect of a solar system that curves through space (a binary motion), where little local force is required.
Shortly before the big battle raged which led to the fall of the phlogiston theory, anomalies in the theory began to show up. We have already mentioned the acceleration of precession, the first, and perhaps most important anomaly. Here are additional anomalies that are showing up in the lunisolar theory. Summarized from the table on page 139:
Anomalies of Lunisolar Theory
*Precession is shown to be relative to objects outside of solar system, not to objects inside. (opposite of claims by lunisolar)
*Sol is part of a binary star system as a majority of all stars are. (opposite of lunisolar claim of a solitary star system for Sol)
*Complicated, unproven theories are required to explain Earth's changing orientation to inertial space. (explained simply by curved path of Earth through space in Binary Star theory.)
*different physics required to correlate the sidereal and solar years. (these are the natural result of a binary orbit, and no further explanation is required)
*Sol does not have enough angular momentum (until you add in the binary orbit angular momentum of Sol)
*Sheer edge of solar system unexplained and unexpected (but a natural result of the sweeping of the two stars when they orbit through the Grand Center)
*Lack of precession of objects within the solar system in inexplicable (natural result of binary star system)
*Comet paths should be random but are not.
*The lunisolar theory reveals "disparate theories to explain wobble, time deltas, angular momentum, etc." The application of Occam's razor would clearly lead us to accept the Binary Star theory over the lunisolar theory, just as its application led scientists eventually to discard the phlogiston theory for the oxygen theory.
You may have heard of Sirius being referred to as the "Dog Star" and thought as I originally did that this was because it is the brightest star in the constellation named Canis Major, the "Big Dog". But suppose it was named Canis Major because it contained a star, namely Sirius, which moved faster than other stars across the sky? That is what our binary companion would do if we had one: it would seem to move faster across the sky than the background stars. Sirius and Sol are like two horses on a Merry-Go-Round. If you have ever tried to look at someone else on a carousel ride with you, you would know that they seem to stand still while all the things outside the carousel seem to fly by. If on the other hand you try to follow with your eyes the things outside the carousel that person on the other horse would be moving fast in relation to them. That's our position when we observe Sirius in the night sky. Although it is locked in synchrony with us, Sirius seems to be moving faster than all the stars around it which are outside our binary Merry-Go-Round. On page 172 Cruttenden shows a drawing of Canis Major (aka Laelops) and says in the caption: "Laelops was known for its speed. It was said to run so fast that not even the fastest deer could escape if when chased."
[page 173] The association of Sirius with the Sun and a celestial dog has been rather consistent throughout the ancient world. In Chaldea (present-day Iraq) the star was known as the "Dog Star that leads" and the "Star of the Dog." In Assyria, it was the "Dog of the Sun." In still older Akkadia, it was named Mul-lik-ud, the "Dog Star of the Sun." And in remote China the star was identified as a heavenly wolf. There is even a depiction of the Egyptian goddess Isis accompanied by a dog. As we know, dogs follow things. To "dog" someone is to follow his or her every step. Could it be that Sirius is named that because it always seems to follow our Sun, as only a binary companion would?
What do we call those last warm days of summer? Dog days. But why? Could it be that in ancient times, Sirius was close enough to Sol that its appearance in the sky during the warm days of autumn was taken as the reason for the unusually warm days? That never had occurred to me before I read this in the "Get Fuzzy" comic strip in the Times-Picayune one morning recently:
"The Romans believed that Sirius -- the Dog Star -- added to the heat of the Sun greatly from July 3rd to August 11th, creating the Dies Caniculares -- the Dog Days of summer."
During Roman times, the relative speed of Sol and Sirius would be slower than now as the two star systems would have been moving apart from one another. This would have caused a red shift due to doppler effects and Sirius would have seemed to be a red star. During the past several hundred years, Sol and Sirius are approaching one another again, and Sirius has taken on a blue cast, exactly what a binary star theory would predict.
[page 174] It has already been mentioned that the Sumerians had an important star named Nibiru, a star that "crossed" other stars. While there is no cuneiform text that says Nibiru is Sirius, they do say it is a "red star," and if ancient observations are correct it was indeed red in the time of Sumer.
A review of a book like a caricature of a person necessarily leave out more than it includes. If the meager data and arguments I have recounted herein leave you wanting more, I can point you to no better place than the book itself. With that caveat, I will allow Walter Cruttenden to end this review the way he ended the book. He gives us two choices, one -- "a tale to tremble by"(4) of a solitary Sun and two -- a tale of "sweet influences" and "gentle awakening" in a binary star system. The choice is yours.
[page 266] So here we are, children of the cosmos, hurtling through space on a giant mud ball at an incalculable rate of speed. What could be any more ridiculous or any more real? But if that's all there is to it, it's scary and I want off. However, if we are being shepherded by a life-giving Sun, or two, bathed by sweet influences gently awakening our consciousness as we move through space in the direction of a higher age, what could be more wonderful?
The truth is, the spinning Earth gives us the beauty of day and night, and our orbit around the Sun gives us the life and joy of the changing seasons. Now we are about to find that the binary motion produces the Precession of the Equinox, and gives us a cosmic cycle so real and so grand in its magnificence, it not only makes sense of history, it brings wonder to life.
---------------------------- Binary Star Items in the News -----------------------------------------
Contact: Heidi Hall
Binary Research Institute
Evidence mounts for sun's companion star
NEWPORT BEACH, CA (April 24, 2006) - The Binary Research Institute (BRI) has found that orbital characteristics of the recently discovered planetoid, "Sedna", demonstrate the possibility that our sun might be part of a binary star system. A binary star system consists of two stars gravitationally bound orbiting a common center of mass. Once thought to be highly unusual, such systems are now considered to be common in the Milky Way galaxy.
Walter Cruttenden at BRI, Professor Richard Muller at UC Berkeley, Dr. Daniel Whitmire of the University of Louisiana, amongst several others, have long speculated on the possibility that our sun might have an as yet undiscovered companion. Most of the evidence has been statistical rather than physical. The recent discovery of Sedna, a small planet like object first detected by Cal Tech astronomer Dr. Michael Brown, provides what could be indirect physical evidence of a solar companion. Matching the recent findings by Dr. Brown, showing that Sedna moves in a highly unusual elliptical orbit, Cruttenden has determined that Sedna moves in resonance with previously published orbital data for a hypothetical companion star.
In the May 2006 issue of Discover, Dr. Brown stated: "Sedna shouldn't be there. There's no way to put Sedna where it is. It never comes close enough to be affected by the sun, but it never goes far enough away from the sun to be affected by other stars... Sedna is stuck, frozen in place; there's no way to move it, basically there's no way to put it there - unless it formed there. But it's in a very elliptical orbit like that. It simply can't be there. There's no possible way - except it is. So how, then?"
"I'm thinking it was placed there in the earliest history of the solar system. I'm thinking it could have gotten there if there used to be stars a lot closer than they are now and those stars affected Sedna on the outer part of its orbit and then later on moved away. So I call Sedna a fossil record of the earliest solar system. Eventually, when other fossil records are found, Sedna will help tell us how the sun formed and the number of stars that were close to the sun when it formed."
Walter Cruttenden agrees that Sedna's highly elliptical orbit is very unusual, but noted that the orbit period of 12,000 years is in neat resonance with the expected orbit periodicity of a companion star as outlined in several prior papers. Consequently, Cruttenden believes that Sedna's unusual orbit is something indicative of the current solar system configuration, not merely a historical record. "It is hard to imagine that Sedna would retain its highly elliptical orbit pattern since the beginning of the solar system billions of years ago. Because eccentricity would likely fade with time, it is logical to assume Sedna is telling us something about current, albeit unexpected solar system forces, most probably a companion star".
Outside of a few popular articles, and Cruttenden's book "Lost Star of Myth and Time", which outlines historical references and the modern search for the elusive companion, the possibility of a binary partner star to our sun has been left to the halls of academia. But with Dr. Brown's recent discoveries of Sedna and Xena, (now confirmed to be larger than Pluto), and timing observations like Cruttenden's, the search for a companion star may be gaining momentum.
---------------------------- Footnotes -----------------------------------------
Footnote 1. WAG is the technical term for a ludicrous hypothesis pulled from some dark place; the acronym stands for wild ass guess.
Return to text directly before Footnote 1.
Footnote 2. I must point out that it is not Walter Cruttenden who is identifying Sirius as the companion star. On the contrary he puts forth a Binary Star theory without identifying a specific star system as the companion. When the truth of his new theory dawns upon humankind, the identification of which star system is the companion will quickly follow. Until then, dear Reader, I exhort you to remember that it is Bobby Matherne who is sticking his neck out and identifying the companion as Sirius, not Walter Cruttenden, and I do so mainly for simplifying the presentation which follows in this review. If it turns out to be a different star, simply change the name, and remove the Sirius metaphoric references. Also there is a wobble of the Earth, but it is only an apparent wobble with respect to objects outside of the solar system and not to objects within. The apparent wobble is due to the curvature of the solar system in its orbit of another star system.
Return to text directly before Footnote 2.
Footnote 3. Can you imagine people with breathing tanks such as you see in shops and churches these days thinking that the job of these tanks was not to fill their lungs with oxygen, but rather to suck phlogiston from their lungs?
Return to text directly before Footnote 3.
Footnote 4. Quoted from Lisel Mueller's poem, "The Triumph of Life: Mary Shelley." Poem can be read here.
Return to text directly before Footnote 4.
Any questions about this review, Contact: Bobby Matherne