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."