On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and our solar system are
clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of
physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics.
In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their parrot media
has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly
substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a
relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite
possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy),
and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first
200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have
been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having
imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole
mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg).
First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than
having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic
molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 solar masses in
order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99%
of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having to fend for
itself, at a place and time when our existing solar system wasn't any
too far away. *Others of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so
far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6,
while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of
1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller
galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have
been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the
remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly
diameter that is suddenly nowhere to be found.
In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system
wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal
radius interrelated with such a nearby cosmic molecular mass of
1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual
barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar
system.
Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions
isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and
singular Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest.
Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone)
*http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html
The Hipparcos Space Astrometry Mission: (mainstream media ignored)
*http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/are...cfm?fareaid=20
*http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milkyway-04m.html
Local galactic motion simulation:
*"The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood", by B.
Nordström et al.
*http://www.aanda.org/content/view/71/42/lang,en
According to several physics and astronomy kinds of *peer reviewed and
science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of
eye-candy plus other collaborative peer replicated research), our
Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the
same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely
Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was
supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that
hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed
into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or
rebirth.
Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other
archives (including those of what our FAS has compiled) depicting
“colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue enhanced
and expanded upon via a trio of their impressive orbital
observatories, not to mention whatever the renewed and improved Hubble
plus our next generation of orbital observatories should further
document. *It may even become hard to find galaxies as massive as ours
and Andromeda that are entirely original without their having grown
via mergers.
Where's the all-knowing expertise from our FAS, telling us whatever
they seem to know best or at least suspect is most likely, and where
exactly are those public funded supercomputer simulations. *Surely
these brown-nosed clowns, faith-based bigots and closed mindsets of
our Usenet/newsgroup proprietors that are continually enforcing their
mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do
by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to
constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good.
Sirius and us(our solar system) are very much indeed inseparable, at
least according to those regular laws of physics pertaining to the
mainstream accepted notions of Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics
that seems more than sufficient for everything else we’re told to
accept, and especially if little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal
radii of 1.459e14 m that’s worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at
8.6 light years and worth 1.417e17 N (20 thousand fold stronger), and
to think that we’ve been gaining on this 3.5 solar mass of Sirius by
7.6 km/sec, plus most likely and unavoidably accelerating towards our
next close encounter.
However, it’s pretty much all nothing but another mainstream infowar,
of media damage-control by way of a mainstream tactical disinformation
gauntlet of carefully orchestrated lies, deceptions and systematic
obfuscation is what it’s apparently all about. When I’ve merely
expected of others to share information and to otherwise
constructively ponder and contribute to this topic and many similar
ones before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder, and
otherwise mostly negativity and banishment, as well as from a certain
racist and kosher bigotry spouting potty-mouth rabbi none the less.
However, the laws of physics are seldom if ever politically correct or
otherwise faith-based, and as such they simply do not lie, and even
the best available science doesn’t support many of those established
mainstream notions of excluding anything and everything that rocks a
given faith-based boat.
Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius)
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html
The cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius, as being worth at
least 1.25e6 solar masses, while at a center to center distance of 100
ly and using our solar system mass of 2.05e30 kg for that same era, we
get the following results for 100 ly (9.46053e17 m), 50 ly (4.7303e17
m) and 10 ly (9.46053e16 m).
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 100 ly = 3.819e20 Newtons
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 50 ly = 1.528e21 N
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 10 ly = 3.819e22 N
current (sun ~ earth) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 5.974e24 kg at 1.496e11 m = 3.541e22 N
current (sun ~ mars) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 6.418e23 kg at 2.2794e11 m = 1.639e21 N
current (sun ~ pluto) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 1.305e22 kg at 5.906e12 m = 4.964e16 N
current (solar system) ~ Sedna/average gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N
current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N
current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N
Being that a molecular cloud of at least 1.25e6 solar masses is going
to have a diameter of nearly 100 light years, as such I might suggest
that we use the 50 ly parameter for the adjusted distance from the
core density of such a molecular cloud, as for mutually binding us at
the weak gravity force of 1.528e21 N. Of course by doubling that
distance cuts this tidal binding force of radial gravitational
attraction down to a forth, whereas even at 500 ly it’s still worth
1.528e19 N, and at the 2.5e37 solar masses brings that 500 ly distance
right back up to being worth 1.528e20 N.
The cosmic creation of the Sirius star/solar system was no small
matter of any wussy little molecular cloud. This was an extremely
large cloud and subsequent stellar birthing event of relatively recent
times (250~300 MBP), and as such it would have been entirely visible
to the naked human eyes of that era (not that any intelligent human
via Darwin or intelligent design even existed at that time, although
Ed Conrad’s “Man of Coal” seems to be of that era), and as of most
recently transforming the red supergiant phase of Sirius B into a
white dwarf required a helium flashover (slow nova) about as close as
you can safely get, if not a little too close.
By way of reading from what others claiming to know more than most
anyone else (must be Einstein clones), it seems they’d have no
problems with suggesting the 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of having
been worth 1.25e7 solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar
system, and if still using 2.05e30 kg mass for that of our solar
system of that same era results in yet another 10 fold increased force
of attraction for that same 50 ly distance, representing 1.528e22 N
(nearly half of the sun~earth attraction), and 99.9999% of this 1e6:1
molecular cloud that’s oddly nowhere to be found, by rights should
have greatly affected our solar system.
Try to remember that this wasn’t a one brief time kind of a cosmic
drive-by shooting, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before that massive molecular cloud ever
having cranked out those impressive Sirius stars, and for at least
another million some odd years of having blown everything else
(99.999% of that molecular cloud) far away. Once again, how can this
kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific original mass not
have affected our solar system?
This one shouldn’t be so hard to answer, but then our resident wizards
seem unable, and/or unwilling to share and share alike without
involving a great deal of bloodshed.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”