A retrospective look at Sirius B in its red supergiant phase

On Jun 28, 7:50*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote:



We seem to have become closely associated with the Sirius star
cluster, even though Sirius has been a relatively newish and extremely
vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from another
galaxy), and especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250
million years worth.

It took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at least 120,000 solar
masses in order to produce such a 12+ mass star system, leaving 99.999%
of that molecular mass blown away and to fend for itself, at a place
and time when our existing solar system wasn't any too far away.
Others might go so far as to suggest a molecular cloud mass of 1.2
million, and others yet would prefer that this terrific cloud had
emerged from a smaller galaxy that encountered our Milky Way.

There's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow
directly affected by and otherwise having become somewhat tidal radius
interrelated with such a nearby mass, at least associated with the
mutual barycenter that's primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar
system.

Lo and behold, it seems the mergers of galactic proportions isn’t
nearly as uncommon as some naysayers might care to think.

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 *observationology
science (deductive interpretation of eye-candy), our Milky Way is made
up of at least two galactic units, with more on their blue-shifted way
towards encountering us. *Seems hardly fair considering that
everything was supposedly created via one singular big bang, not to
mention that hundreds to thousands of galaxies seem headed into the
Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth.

Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone)
*http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html

Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other
archives (including those of FAS) depicting “colliding galaxies”, soon
to be ESA 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 gown via mergers.

Where's the all-knowing expertise from FAS, telling us whatever they
seem to know best or at least suspect is most likely. *Surely these
brown-nosed clowns, faith-based bigots and closed mindsets of our
Usenet/newsgroup that are enforcing their mainstream status quo (much
like my personal Jewish shadow tries to do), are hopefully not
speaking on behalf of FAS.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Earth moving away from the Sun!
*On Jun 15, 3:29 am, "Painius" wrote: "Double-A" wrote in message...
Thanks, Saul. *I have long wondered and speculated as to whether this
was happening.

Double-A

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a.../thread/83e4c2...



Six inches a year is such a small amount that 4.5 billion
years ago (if that rate has not changed) and using the
present approximate Earth-Sun distance of 93 million
miles, the Earth has moved about 1/2 a million miles
outward from the Sun. *Back then it would have been
92.5 million miles away from the Sun. *And this is why
the astronomers i've talked to consider the tidal effect
between the Sun and planets to be insignificant.

It is in fact so insignificant even between the Earth and
the Moon that both these PLANETS will be gravitationally
bound to each other even 7.5 billion years from now,
which is the max time for the Sun to go Red Giant.

This might, however, explain some of the Sun's loss of
angular momentum and why the Sun, with the most
mass has by far the smallest angular momentum of all
the orbs in the Solar system.

happy days and...
* *starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

In spite of whatever our resident rabbi and others of his Kosher type
spew from between their mainstream infomercial flapping butt-cheeks,
you are as per usual mostly correct, in that the earth-sun tidal
interaction if causing whatever perceived orbital recession is
extremely minor, whereas the ongoing loss of at least 1e12 kg/sec is
not so minor.

In order for that main sequence red giant phase to begin within 7.5
billion years, our sun of 12 billion years worth would have had to
have been consuming plus CME losing a combined average mass of at
least 1e12 kg/sec (1000 million tonnes/sec), and otherwise the more
than likely requirement for an average loss of 2e12 kg/sec (2000
million tonnes/sec) seems a whole lot closer to the truth, whereas
2e12 kg/sec represents a more respectable 12 billion year accumulated
loss of 33.3% from an original solar mass of 2.27e30 kg down to the
1.51 solar red giant mass, which by some estimates may still represent
an insufficient rate of losing hydrogen mass in order to bring on that
bloated red giant phase.

If our red giant phase is coming any sooner than 7.5 billion years
from now, simply adjust the rate of average mass loss to suit, such as
3e12 kg/sec or whatever qualifies within that window of time as given
for the stellar birth to red giant.

Unless my math is wrong (wouldn’t be the first time), or that a given
main sequence star simply doesn’t have to burn through nearly as much
of its hydrogen as we’ve been told, whereas it seems that perhaps
we’ve been systematically misinformed about how much hydrogen mass a
given main sequence star has to consume and/or blow off before going
into its red giant phase. *Therefore our sun may actually require this
depletion rate of 2e12 kg/s in order to have burned and otherwise
blown off sufficient hydrogen, helium and a few other elements of mass
within its maximum 12 billion year cycle, or perhaps 3e12 kg/sec for
a given 9 billion year life cycle before becoming that red giant.

Now try to imagine how much mass Sirius B (if originally 9 solar
mass) had to have been going through (say 250 million years is worth
1e15 kg/sec?), and Sirius A for the past 300 million years has been
using and losing at the rate of perhaps 1e14 kg/sec.

Of further interest is the original molecular cloud that gave such
births to Sirius ABC (12.5 solar mass) had to be worth at least
1.25e5 solar masses, if not 1.25e6 solar masses as of just 300 million
years ago and nearby. *So, where exactly is the remaining 99.999% of
this terrific cloud, and why was our solar system supposedly never
affected by any of this nearby cosmic activity?

How can such a nearby and truly massive molecular cloud as having
given us the Sirius star/solar system, not have affected our solar
solar system?

Just the weak force of gravity alone should have done the trick,
especially if that cloud amounted to 1.25e6 solar masses.

It seems the natural life cycle of a star begins with a turn-on flash
and ends with a serious blast, as well as potentially having a few ups
and downs in between, especially when there's more than one star
involved. So, how is it that our relatively passive solar system was
somehow excluded from all of this nearby cosmic fun?

~ BG