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

On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:



Red giant stars are many, and yet still a little hard to come by, as
only a few public images of whatever is within 1000 light years seem
to exist that fit within the color saturated eye-candy profiles that
we’ve been taught to accept. *However, the visible spectrum is
extremely limited as to what is otherwise technically accessible from
just above and below our genetically limited and thus inferior visual
spectrum. (seems entirely odd that our human evolution was so careless
in having discarded so much visual capability, in that other creatures
seem to have a far wider visual spectrum capability that includes some
UV and IR)

“Red GiantStarFound to Have Massive Tail”
*http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Red_G...Have_Massive_T...
*Mira A of several hundred solar radii (UV colorized as bluish): “A
dyingstarsituated 400 light years away from us exhibits an unusual
and massive tail of heated gas that spreads for more than 13 light
years.”
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira
*http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/20070815/a.html

Sirius B could have been much like an image of Mira A, except a whole
lot larger (1000 solar radii), as viewed in visible and near IR
*http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm...osium/173770_m...

Mira A and lots more composite observationology from FAS
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A6.html

There are many possibilities, as for how Sirius B used to function as
a truly massive (9 solarmass)star, thereby extremely hot and fast
burning prior to becoming a red supergiant, creating an impressive
planetary nebula phase before ending as the little white dwarf. *For
all we know Sirius B was even a variable kind of red giant and then
perhaps a slow nova flashover phase prior to finishing off as the
white dwarf.

These following examples are probably similar or perhaps representing
a slightly smaller version of what the Siriusstar/solar system looked
like once Sirius B had started turning itself from an impressive red
supergiant into a white dwarf of perhaps 1/8th its originalmass,
taking roughly 64~96,000 years for this explosivemassshedding phase
to happen. *A few tens of billions of years later is when such a white
dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf, kind of black diamond spentstar, in that our universe may or may not be quite old enough to
display such examples.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_Nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html
*http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6.html

Betelgeuse has been a massive red giant at 20+ fold themassof our
sun, and likely worth nearly 3 fold themassof the original Sirius B,
and currently expanded to 1000 solar radii, and it'll be truly
impressive nova whenever it transforms into a white dwarf nearly the
size of Jupiter.

The soon to be renewed and improved Hubble should accomplish the
improved spectrum and resolution of most everything, along with other
existing and soon to be deployed telescopes should give us even better
composite examples of what Sirius B used to look like. *This may give
some of us a better interpretation as to what transpired right next
door to us, as well as having unavoidably contributed to some of what
our solar system has to offer.

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 99.99%
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.

All lies, deceptions and obfuscation is what it’s all about. When
I’ve expected of others to share information and to otherwise
constructively contribute to this topic, all we ever got at best was a
stone cold shoulder, mostly negativity from a certain rabbi none the
less. However, the laws of physics are seldom politically correct or
otherwise faith-based, and they do not lie.

Gravity Force of Attraction
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius being at least 1.25e6
solar masses, 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:
(100 ly = 9.46053e17 meters & 50 ly = 4.7303e17 meters)
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) gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 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 might suggest
that we use the 50 ly 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 gravitational attraction down to a forth.

Try to remember that this wasn’t a one time kind of cosmic drive-by
event, but most likely worth at least ten million years of persistent
gravity pull before 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 mass) away. Once
again, how can this kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific
original mass not have affected our solar system?

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 a 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of 1.25e7
solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar system, and 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).

Now for a little objective perspective. If our current solar system
mass of 2.02e30 kg can still manage to hold onto the highly elliptical
trek of little planetoid Sedna, at the semi-major axis that offers
1.023e14 N, then it sure as hell shouldn’t have any problems
whatsoever with Sirius that’s an all inclusive 3.5 solar masses and
worth 1.417e17 N (1,385 times greater gravitational binding than
Sedna). There’s actually a fair number of TNOs that our solar system
holds onto, further proving how it’s entirely possible that we’re
tidal associated with the Sirius star/solar system.

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

On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:



Red giant stars are many, and yet still a little hard to come by, as
only a few public images of whatever is within 1000 light years seem
to exist that fit within the color saturated eye-candy profiles that
we’ve been taught to accept. *However, the visible spectrum is
extremely limited as to what is otherwise technically accessible from
just above and below our genetically limited and thus inferior visual
spectrum. (seems entirely odd that our human evolution was so careless
in having discarded so much visual capability, in that other creatures
seem to have a far wider visual spectrum capability that includes some
UV and IR)

“Red GiantStarFound to Have Massive Tail”
*http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Red_G...Have_Massive_T...
*Mira A of several hundred solar radii (UV colorized as bluish): “A
dyingstarsituated 400 light years away from us exhibits an unusual
and massive tail of heated gas that spreads for more than 13 light
years.”
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira
*http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/20070815/a.html

Sirius B could have been much like an image of Mira A, except a whole
lot larger (1000 solar radii), as viewed in visible and near IR
*http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm...osium/173770_m...

Mira A and lots more composite observationology from FAS
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A6.html

There are many possibilities, as for how Sirius B used to function as
a truly massive (9 solarmass)star, thereby extremely hot and fast
burning prior to becoming a red supergiant, creating an impressive
planetary nebula phase before ending as the little white dwarf. *For
all we know Sirius B was even a variable kind of red giant and then
perhaps a slow nova flashover phase prior to finishing off as the
white dwarf.

These following examples are probably similar or perhaps representing
a slightly smaller version of what the Siriusstar/solar system looked
like once Sirius B had started turning itself from an impressive red
supergiant into a white dwarf of perhaps 1/8th its originalmass,
taking roughly 64~96,000 years for this explosivemassshedding phase
to happen. *A few tens of billions of years later is when such a white
dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf, kind of black diamond spentstar, in that our universe may or may not be quite old enough to
display such examples.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_Nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html
*http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6.html

Betelgeuse has been a massive red giant at 20+ fold themassof our
sun, and likely worth nearly 3 fold themassof the original Sirius B,
and currently expanded to 1000 solar radii, and it'll be truly
impressive nova whenever it transforms into a white dwarf nearly the
size of Jupiter.

The soon to be renewed and improved Hubble should accomplish the
improved spectrum and resolution of most everything, along with other
existing and soon to be deployed telescopes should give us even better
composite examples of what Sirius B used to look like. *This may give
some of us a better interpretation as to what transpired right next
door to us, as well as having unavoidably contributed to some of what
our solar system has to offer.

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 99.99%
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”

Sirius and us are inseparable, at least according to the physics of
gravity.

It’s all infowar tactical lies, deceptions and obfuscation is what
it’s all about. When I’ve merely expected of others to share
information and to otherwise constructively contribute to this topic
and many before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder,
and otherwise mostly negativity from a certain rabbi none the less.
However, the laws of physics are seldom politically correct or
otherwise faith-based, and they do not lie, and even the best
available science doesn’t support many of those established mainstream
notions.

Gravity Force of Attraction
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius being at least 1.25e6
solar masses, 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:
(100 ly = 9.46053e17 meters & 50 ly = 4.7303e17 meters)
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) gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N

current (solar system ~ Sirius) gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Creating the Sirius star/solar system was no small matter of any wussy
molecular cloud. This was extremely big and it would have been
entirely visible to the naked human eye.

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 might suggest
that we use the 50 ly 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 gravitational attraction down to a forth.

Try to remember that this wasn’t a one time kind of cosmic drive-by
event, but most likely worth at least ten million years of persistent
gravity pull before 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 mass) away. Once
again, how can this kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific
original mass not have affected our solar system?

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 a 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of 1.25e7
solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar system, and 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).

Now for a little objective perspective. If our current solar system
mass of 2.02e30 kg can still manage to hold onto the highly elliptical
trek of little planetoid Sedna, at the semi-major axis that offers
1.023e14 N, then it sure as hell shouldn’t have any problems
whatsoever with Sirius that’s an all inclusive 3.5 solar masses and
worth 1.417e17 N (1,385 times greater gravitational binding than
Sedna). There’s actually a fair number of TNOs that our solar system
holds onto, further proving how it’s entirely possible that we are
tidal radii associated with the Sirius star/solar system.

~ BG

On May 23, 10:43*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On May 23, 11:02*am, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sat, 23 May 2009 10:26:25 -0700, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:

Don't you feel it is pathetic that you keep spamming 5 news groups, and
you have to reply to your own posts because the only people who
contribute to your threads are telling you to SFTU?

Just curious.

Not at all, because unlike yourself and others of your kind that only
post those silly infomercial topics and failsafe replies, whereas I
keep improving by way of learning, adding information to my topics and
expecting that somewhere out there in Google Groups (aka Usenet/
newsgroup) land is an actual 5th grader or better kind of brain that
isn't of a Zionist Nazi mindset.

*~ BG

Or there will be 100 years from now. Or wait, am I actually reading
this? no?

Sirius B is a crystal planet housing one of the natural quantum
computers humans tap into though torsion fields.

It is like flowers don't see bees, they just use them.

On Jun 2, 7:37*am, BradGuth wrote:

Ask yourself, why would a faith-based sadistic bigot, Mafia cabal or
political mindset object to this topic?

Nothing is true until officially denied.

On Jul 2, 6:38*am, gabydewilde wrote:
On Jun 2, 7:37*am, BradGuth wrote:



Ask yourself, why would a faith-based sadistic bigot, Mafia cabal or
political mindset object to this topic?

Nothing is true until officially denied.

That sounds about right.

~ BG

On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:



Red giant stars are many, and yet still a little hard to come by, as
only a few public images of whatever is within 1000 light years seem
to exist that fit within the color saturated eye-candy profiles that
we’ve been taught to accept. *However, the visible spectrum is
extremely limited as to what is otherwise technically accessible from
just above and below our genetically limited and thus inferior visual
spectrum. (seems entirely odd that our human evolution was so careless
in having discarded so much visual capability, in that other creatures
seem to have a far wider visual spectrum capability that includes some
UV and IR)

“Red GiantStarFound to Have Massive Tail”
*http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Red_G...Have_Massive_T...
*Mira A of several hundred solar radii (UV colorized as bluish): “A
dyingstarsituated 400 light years away from us exhibits an unusual
and massive tail of heated gas that spreads for more than 13 light
years.”
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira
*http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/20070815/a.html

Sirius B could have been much like an image of Mira A, except a whole
lot larger (1000 solar radii), as viewed in visible and near IR
*http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm...osium/173770_m...

Mira A and lots more composite observationology from FAS
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A6.html

There are many possibilities, as for how Sirius B used to function as
a truly massive (9 solarmass)star, thereby extremely hot and fast
burning prior to becoming a red supergiant, creating an impressive
planetary nebula phase before ending as the little white dwarf. *For
all we know Sirius B was even a variable kind of red giant and then
perhaps a slow nova flashover phase prior to finishing off as the
white dwarf.

These following examples are probably similar or perhaps representing
a slightly smaller version of what the Siriusstar/solar system looked
like once Sirius B had started turning itself from an impressive red
supergiant into a white dwarf of perhaps 1/8th its originalmass,
taking roughly 64~96,000 years for this explosivemassshedding phase
to happen. *A few tens of billions of years later is when such a white
dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf, kind of black diamond spentstar, in that our universe may or may not be quite old enough to
display such examples.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_Nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html
*http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6.html

Betelgeuse has been a massive red giant at 20+ fold themassof our
sun, and likely worth nearly 3 fold themassof the original Sirius B,
and currently expanded to 1000 solar radii, and it'll be truly
impressive nova whenever it transforms into a white dwarf nearly the
size of Jupiter.

The soon to be renewed and improved Hubble should accomplish the
improved spectrum and resolution of most everything, along with other
existing and soon to be deployed telescopes should give us even better
composite examples of what Sirius B used to look like. *This may give
some of us a better interpretation as to what transpired right next
door to us, as well as having unavoidably contributed to some of what
our solar system has to offer.

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 99.99%
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.

Sirius and us(our solar system) are inseparable, at least according to
the regular laws of physics pertaining to gravity and orbital
mechanics that seems more than sufficient.

However, it’s all a mainstream of infowar tactical gauntlet of lies,
deceptions and obfuscation is what it’s all about. When I’ve merely
expected of others to share information and to otherwise
constructively 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 from most, as well as from a certain
racist and bigotry spouting rabbi none the less. However, the laws of
physics are seldom if ever politically correct or otherwise faith-
based, and as such they do not lie, and even the best available
science doesn’t support many of those established mainstream notions.

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 being worth at least
1.25e6 solar masses, 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 meters, 50 ly =
4.7303e17 meters and 10 ly = 9.46053e16 meters.
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) gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N

current (solar system ~ Sirius) gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Creating the Sirius star/solar system was no small matter of any wussy
little molecular cloud. This was an extremely big cloud and
subsequent stellar birthing event of relatively recent times, 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 existed at that time).

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
back up to being worth 1.528e20 N.

Try to remember that this wasn’t a one brief time kind of a cosmic
drive-by event, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before 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 mass)
far away. Once again, how can this kind of nearby cosmic event and of
such horrific original mass not have affected our solar system?

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 being
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).

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 or any other professional group.

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

Sirius and us(our solar system) are inseparable, at least according to
the regular laws of physics pertaining to the laws of gravity and
orbital mechanics that seems more than sufficient, especially if
little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal radii of 1.459e11 km
that’s worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at 1.417e17 N (20
thousand fold stronger) and we’ve been gaining on Sirius by 7.6 km/
sec, plus most likely accelerating towards are next encounter.

It’s all nothing but a mainstream infowar, a tactical gauntlet of
lies, deceptions and systematic obfuscation is what it’s 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 from most, as
well as from a certain racist and bigotry spouting 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 event, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before 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?

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
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 Jewish shadow tries to do by
trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group.

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


On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:


Red giant stars are many, and yet still a little hard to come by, as
only a few public images of whatever is within 1000 light years seem
to exist that fit within the color saturated eye-candy profiles that
we’ve been taught to accept. *However, the visible spectrum is
extremely limited as to what is otherwise technically accessible from
just above and below our genetically limited and thus inferior visual
spectrum. (seems entirely odd that our human evolution was so careless
in having discarded so much visual capability, in that other creatures
seem to have a far wider visual spectrum capability that includes some
UV and IR)

“Red GiantStarFound to Have Massive Tail”
*http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Red_G...Have_Massive_T...
*Mira A of several hundred solar radii (UV colorized as bluish): “A
dying star situated 400 light years away from us exhibits an unusual
and massive tail of heated gas that spreads for more than 13 light
years.”
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira
*http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/20070815/a.html

Sirius B could have been much like an image of Mira A, except a whole
lot larger (1000 solar radii), as viewed in visible and near IR
*http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm...osium/173770_m...

Mira A and lots more composite observationology from FAS
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A6.html

There are many possibilities, as for how Sirius B used to function as
a truly massive (9 solar mass)star, thereby extremely hot and fast
burning prior to becoming a red supergiant, creating an impressive
planetary nebula phase before ending as the little white dwarf. *For
all we know Sirius B was even a variable kind of red giant and then
perhaps a slow nova flashover phase prior to finishing off as the
white dwarf.

These following examples are probably similar or perhaps representing
a slightly smaller version of what the Sirius star/solar system looked
like once Sirius B had started turning itself from an impressive red
supergiant into a white dwarf of perhaps 1/8th its original mass,
taking roughly 64~96,000 years for this explosive mass shedding phase
to happen. *A few tens of billions of years later is when such a white
dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf, kind of black diamond spent star, in that our universe may or may not be quite old enough to
display such examples.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_Nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html
*http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6.html

Betelgeuse has been a massive red giant at 20+ fold the mass of our
sun, and likely worth nearly 3 fold the mass of the original Sirius B,
and currently expanded to 1000 solar radii, and it'll be truly
impressive nova whenever it transforms into a white dwarf nearly the
size of Jupiter.

The soon to be renewed and improved Hubble should accomplish the
improved spectrum and resolution of most everything, along with other
existing and soon to be deployed telescopes should give us even better
composite examples of what Sirius B used to look like. *This may give
some of us a better interpretation as to what transpired right next
door to us, as well as having unavoidably contributed to some of what
our solar system has to offer.

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 99.99%
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 neighborhood", 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”

On Jul 3, 5:41*am, BradGuth wrote:
Sirius and us(our solar system) are inseparable, at least according to
the regular laws of physics pertaining to the laws of gravity and
orbital mechanics that seems more than sufficient, especially if
little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal radii of 1.459e11 km
that’s worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at 1.417e17 N (20
thousand fold stronger) and we’ve been gaining on Sirius by 7.6 km/
sec, plus most likely accelerating towards are next encounter.

It’s all nothing but a mainstream infowar, a tactical gauntlet of
lies, deceptions and systematic obfuscation is what it’s 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 from most, as
well as from a certain racist and bigotry spouting 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 event, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before 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?

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
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 Jewish shadow tries to do by
trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group.

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



On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:

Red giant stars are many, and yet still a little hard to come by, as
only a few public images of whatever is within 1000 light years seem
to exist that fit within the color saturated eye-candy profiles that
we’ve been taught to accept. *However, the visible spectrum is
extremely limited as to what is otherwise technically accessible from
just above and below our genetically limited and thus inferior visual
spectrum. (seems entirely odd that our human evolution was so careless
in having discarded so much visual capability, in that other creatures
seem to have a far wider visual spectrum capability that includes some
UV and IR)

“Red GiantStarFound to Have Massive Tail”
*http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Red_G...Have_Massive_T...
*Mira A of several hundred solar radii (UV colorized as bluish): “A
dying star situated 400 light years away from us exhibits an unusual
and massive tail of heated gas that spreads for more than 13 light
years.”
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira
*http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/20070815/a.html

Sirius B could have been much like an image of Mira A, except a whole
lot larger (1000 solar radii), as viewed in visible and near IR
*http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm...osium/173770_m...

Mira A and lots more composite observationology from FAS
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A6.html

There are many possibilities, as for how Sirius B used to function as
a truly massive (9 solar mass)star, thereby extremely hot and fast
burning prior to becoming a red supergiant, creating an impressive
planetary nebula phase before ending as the little white dwarf. *For
all we know Sirius B was even a variable kind of red giant and then
perhaps a slow nova flashover phase prior to finishing off as the
white dwarf.

These following examples are probably similar or perhaps representing
a slightly smaller version of what the Sirius star/solar system looked
like once Sirius B had started turning itself from an impressive red
supergiant into a white dwarf of perhaps 1/8th its original mass,
taking roughly 64~96,000 years for this explosive mass shedding phase
to happen. *A few tens of billions of years later is when such a white
dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf, kind of black diamond spent star, in that our universe may or may not be quite old enough to
display such examples.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_Nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html
*http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6.html

Betelgeuse has been a massive red giant at 20+ fold the mass of our
sun, and likely worth nearly 3 fold the mass of the original Sirius B,
and currently expanded to 1000 solar radii, and it'll be truly
impressive nova whenever it transforms into a white dwarf nearly the
size of Jupiter.

The soon to be renewed and improved Hubble should accomplish the
improved spectrum and resolution of most everything, along with other
existing and soon to be deployed telescopes should give us even better
composite examples of what Sirius B used to look like. *This may give
some of us a better interpretation as to what transpired right next
door to us, as well as having unavoidably contributed to some of what
our solar system has to offer.

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 99.99%
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 neighborhood", 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”

”Whoever controls the past, controls the future” / George Orwell

“We're ignorant of life in the universe. We only have one planet that
serves as an example and in science it's not good to derive
information from a sample size of one.” / David Grinspoon

How could the Sirius B helium flashover not have affected us?

How could the tidal radii of the Sirius star/solar system not have our
solar system within its control?

How could the original molecular cloud as having given birth to the
extremely vibrant Sirius star/solar system have gone through our part
of this galaxy so quickly, and without a trace?

~ BG


On Jul 3, 5:41*am, BradGuth wrote:
Sirius and us(our solar system) are inseparable, at least according to
the regular laws of physics pertaining to the laws of gravity and
orbital mechanics that seems more than sufficient, especially if
little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal radii of 1.459e11 km
that’s worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at 1.417e17 N (20
thousand fold stronger) and we’ve been gaining on Sirius by 7.6 km/
sec, plus most likely accelerating towards are next encounter.

It’s all nothing but a mainstream infowar, a tactical gauntlet of
lies, deceptions and systematic obfuscation is what it’s 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 from most, as
well as from a certain racist and bigotry spouting 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 event, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before 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?

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
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 Jewish shadow tries to do by
trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group.

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



On Jun 20, 6:16*am, BradGuth wrote: On Apr 27, 4:47*am, BradGuth wrote:

Red giant stars are many, and yet still a little hard to come by, as
only a few public images of whatever is within 1000 light years seem
to exist that fit within the color saturated eye-candy profiles that
we’ve been taught to accept. *However, the visible spectrum is
extremely limited as to what is otherwise technically accessible from
just above and below our genetically limited and thus inferior visual
spectrum. (seems entirely odd that our human evolution was so careless
in having discarded so much visual capability, in that other creatures
seem to have a far wider visual spectrum capability that includes some
UV and IR)

“Red GiantStarFound to Have Massive Tail”
*http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Red_G...Have_Massive_T...
*Mira A of several hundred solar radii (UV colorized as bluish): “A
dying star situated 400 light years away from us exhibits an unusual
and massive tail of heated gas that spreads for more than 13 light
years.”
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira
*http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/galex/20070815/a.html

Sirius B could have been much like an image of Mira A, except a whole
lot larger (1000 solar radii), as viewed in visible and near IR
*http://xmm.esac.esa.int/external/xmm...osium/173770_m...

Mira A and lots more composite observationology from FAS
*http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A6.html

There are many possibilities, as for how Sirius B used to function as
a truly massive (9 solar mass)star, thereby extremely hot and fast
burning prior to becoming a red supergiant, creating an impressive
planetary nebula phase before ending as the little white dwarf. *For
all we know Sirius B was even a variable kind of red giant and then
perhaps a slow nova flashover phase prior to finishing off as the
white dwarf.

These following examples are probably similar or perhaps representing
a slightly smaller version of what the Sirius star/solar system looked
like once Sirius B had started turning itself from an impressive red
supergiant into a white dwarf of perhaps 1/8th its original mass,
taking roughly 64~96,000 years for this explosive mass shedding phase
to happen. *A few tens of billions of years later is when such a white
dwarf eventually becomes a black dwarf, kind of black diamond spent star, in that our universe may or may not be quite old enough to
display such examples.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helix_Nebula
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula
*http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap031207.html
*http://www.uv.es/jrtorres/index6.html

Betelgeuse has been a massive red giant at 20+ fold the mass of our
sun, and likely worth nearly 3 fold the mass of the original Sirius B,
and currently expanded to 1000 solar radii, and it'll be truly
impressive nova whenever it transforms into a white dwarf nearly the
size of Jupiter.

The soon to be renewed and improved Hubble should accomplish the
improved spectrum and resolution of most everything, along with other
existing and soon to be deployed telescopes should give us even better
composite examples of what Sirius B used to look like. *This may give
some of us a better interpretation as to what transpired right next
door to us, as well as having unavoidably contributed to some of what
our solar system has to offer.

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 99.99%
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 neighborhood", 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”