Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

" wrote in news:6b71a18d-b227-
:

On Oct 19, 7:56*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 16:50:28 -0700 (PDT), "

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatoryhttp://www.cloudbait.com

Go bugger your dog--hereinafter "GBYD"

Chris L Peterson wins by KO in the third round.

On Oct 20, 8:26 am, "

So it is your claim that we have been able to measure the surface ( I
assume you must mean this as opposed to atmospheric ) temperature,
with consistent measuring devices, all over the world, including the
oceans ( which make up 70% of the earth's surface ), to an accuracy of
1 or 2 degrees C. for the last 150 years??

NONSENSE!

Have you already forgotten the predictions 25 short years ago of the
"coming ice age"? Were those "scientists" just stupid?

Are you really claiming that Canada does not have a huge arable area
right now that will simply grow if Canada warms up?

Do you really claim that the huge ( much bigger than the Northern ice
cap ) Southern ice cap has not GROWN over the last several years?

Do you really think China, for example, should be exempted from
putting more than one huge coal-fired energy plant a day on line?

Do you really think the world should devote a substantial part of its
available resources to chase a "theory" when we have so many pressing
needs which are killing millions right now? Or do you perhaps also
value dogs more than humans?

Do you really think current climate computer "models" are not subject
to SUBSTANTIAL modifications as our knowledge of the subject
increases?

Do you really think the many PhD climatology scientists who think most
of the current future climate models are seriously flawed are
charlatans?

Don't you think the current modelers who are predicting disaster ought
to open up all the details of their models for debate and discussion?
It is called the "scientific method"

You claim to be a "scientist". In what field, exactly?

Quoting directly from the UK Met Office Hadley Center

"The dataset is based on regular measurements of air temperature at a
global network of long-term land stations and on sea-surface
temperatures measured from ships and buoys."

Very specifically since 1850. Europe, China and Japan all had sites
that record temperatures at high profile sites (Paris, Bejing. London)
in to the early 1700's See

Rayner, N.A., Parker, D.E., Horton, E.B., Folland, C.K., Alexander,
L.V., Rowell, D.P., Kent, E.C. and Kaplan, A., 2003: Global analyses
of SST, sea ice and night marine air temperature since the late
nineteenth century. J Geophys Res, 108 D14.

P. Brohan, J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones,
Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature
changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophys. Res, 111,

The National Climatic Data Center had records for both land and sea
surface temperatures that date back to 1854. See

Smith and Reynolds Vol. 17 Journal of Climate.
Peterson and Vose Vol 78 Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society
A large number of sites across the US have measured temperature
records back to 1812. At the time the US Army collected the daily high
and low temperatures at forts across what was the entire US at the
time. The Army still requires these reading to this day.

As far a predictions for a ice age 25 years ago. There were no
scientific publications that described anything you claim NewsWeek,
Time and National Geographic are the sources of the myth of global
cooling. Looking at the papers referenced in NewsWeek, Time and the
National Geographic you will note that the cooling described would
occur in 10,000 IF we continued to put aerosols into the air such that
there was a 1000 fld increase each year. Read
"The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" by Thomas
C. Peterson, William M. Connolley, and John Fleck. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society Vol. 89 2008

Looks pretty bad for you so far, you are batting 0 for 2

As far as the PhD. Climatologist who say that global warming isn't
occurring there are none. There are some retired meteorologists who
question how much of the observed warming is man-made, but then again
they have been getting paid by the oil/gas industry to say so and
freely admit that they are spokesman for the oil/gas industry.

If you wish to debate how to reduce the warming and want question the
methods and means I agree China and India are and will continue to be
large sources of emissions. However the profligate waste of energy by
the US is equally bad.

Most of those contributing to this topic are not interested in notions
of improving anything other than their offshore bank accounts. Most
are in favor of pushing bigger and more controlling government over
most everything that matters.

Too much of our nation is on a state or federal government payroll as
is. We need a 10%/year cost reduction for the next decade, and we'd
still be in debt. BHO doesn't hardly stand a chance of accomplishing
half that much, at least not without paying the ultimate price.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG


On Oct 15, 6:03 pm, Hank Kroll wrote:
BENIGN SOLUTIONS FOR GOLBAL WARMING
www.alaskapublishing.com

I have been on a quest to alter societal evolution into a more
benign
directions with my books, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES AND GLOBAL WARMING and
PHILOSOPHER’S STONE.
My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems. After reading about the direction our sun is
traveling through space I plotted our course from Orion toward
Hercules and in the process discovered that we are in orbit around the
Sirius A and B which are only 8.5 light years away. We are part of a
cluster of 100 stars ruled by these two giants. Sirius B is a neutron
star of 1.5 earth diameters orbiting 20 earth distances from Sirius A.
Every fifty years it gets so close to Sirius A that it feeds off from
it several metric tons per hour causing it to put out thousands of
times more invisible ultraviolet light than our sun. I am now
convinced that the intense light from Sirius B is responsible for
advanced multi-celled life forms on earth.
Our sun was born with about 40 other stars in an Orion dust cloud not
too far from the Horse Head Nebula currently 1330 light years toward
the center of the Galaxy (toward the Southeast). After our sun was
born and most of the planets formed from dust rings we drifted out in
the Orion Arm toward Hercules (northwest) for two+ billion years.
Galaxies make suns in dust clouds and send them out to make the body
of the galaxy. After our sun was born and the earth formed from dust
around the sun a billion years of volcanism gave earth a thick carbon
dioxide atmosphere of 750 pounds per square inch. {The December
Astronomy magazine mentions that early Earth had an atmosphere of
1,450 pounds per square inch and one third of that was carbon dioxide.
Now Co2 is a trace gas at only .033%. If humans were some how able to
double Co2 it would still be a trace gas at .066%. Human Co2 release
has nothing to do with global warming but it is an excuse to control
us?

Venus is closer to the sun than Earth so the solar wind should have
blown Venus's atmosphere away but it has a Co2 atmosphere of 117
pounds per square inch.

Earth was about one-third smaller diameter at that time. After that,
we (our sun) drifted out into the cold of space for a billion years
and earth had an ice age that lasted one billion years. That's a long
time for nothing to happen. All the oceans were frozen and our sun
didn’t burn as hot as it does today.

After a billion years of being covered with ice, our solar system
drifted between Procyon and Sirius A and B which are over a billion
years older than our sun. These giant stars orbit each other and each
have a total of about 20 times more gravity than our sun. When little,
Sirius B orbiting Sirius A every 54 years came around, it grabbed hold
of our sun and pulled it into orbit around Sirius A because it has 1.5
to 10 times more gravity than our sun. This was fortunate for us
because the light and heat from these giant stars along with the
intense UV 100 times more powerful than our pierced early Earth's
atmosphere, melted the ice on earth and started plants to grow in the
oceans thereby releasing free oxygen. Our brother and sister stars
kept going and are now 50 to 100 light years ahead of us toward the
north and are known as the Constellation Ursa Major (Big Dipper).

Our fortunate capture by the Sirius system happened about 700 million
years ago and this was the beginning of all complex multi-cellular
life forms on earth. During the Carboniferous Era Sirus B laid down
limestone layers up to 12,500 feet thick. The continental United
States from the Rocky Mountains to the Carolinas was laid down at time
with limestone layers on average over 2,500 feet thick. [Look up
Carboniferous Era in Encyclopedia Britannica.] Carbon removed from the
atmosphere during that era was laid down in Pennsylvania and Virginia
as coal layers up to a hundred feet thick. Coal is made from grass and
trees and plants of all kinds. Anthracite or hard coal is compressed
from plant matter at a ration of 40 to 1. Soft coal is compressed down
at a ration of about 20 to 1. The point is, coal, oil, and limestone
are made from carbon dioxide using photosynthesis and ultraviolet
light from space and the majority of it came from Sirius B. Our sun
does not have enough power to keep us out of the ice ages otherwise we
wouldn’t have them! If you want to know more read my book,
COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES. Go to my web sitewww.alaskapublishing.comORwww.GuardDogBooks.co m
.
The point is Earth is loosing its atmosphere. We have a limited time
on earth. During Biblical times the Oxygen was 35%. Reference books
list it as 20% but it is down to about 18% yet we go on burning
things? The oxygen content inside building in Washington, DC is more
lkie 13% where senators and congressmen are making important decisions
that affect your welfare and lifestyle. Low oxygen getting to their
brains doesn't make them smarter!

At the time of the dinosaurs the atmospheric pressure was around 50
pounds per square inch. Now it is down to 14.5 pounds per square inch.
Before our sun was captured by the Sirius system earth had an
atmosphere of 750 pounds per square inch. Over time and it was laid
down as limestone, coal and oil using photosynthesis in the oceans and
light from these stars. We have a limited time to get our act together
and get off the planet so that we can seed life in other biosphere’s.
I am sure that a man as foresighted as Richard Branson knows this
otherwise he wouldn’t be building space ports all over the United
States and spending 3-billion on alternate fuel research.

IS GLOBAL WARMING A REALITY?
According to a new Time/ ABC/Stanford University Poll 85% of
Americans believe that global warming is happening on some level.
We’re still working on the answer to that question. Yes as we get
closer to our host stars we will eventually experience global warming.
And, since we just came out of an Ice Age we should expect at least a
one degree rise in temperature per century. In the mean time here are
a few numbers to throw around.
The average person just sitting there in a chair give off 340
BTU’s
per hour. A thousand persons in a building can run the air
conditioning costs up to 340,000 BTU’s per hour just to keep the
building at the same comfortable temperature. Given the poor
efficiency of the air-conditioning equipment (about 50%) the actual
amount of heat released into the environment by 1000 people inside a
building is 50% more than if they are outside in the open air bringing
the total up to 510,000 or about ½ million BTU’s hour. When you are
working hard the average person can put out up to a thousand BTU’s per
hour. There are conservatively 6.7 billion persons on the planet
putting out two trillion two hundred seventy eight BTU’s per hour.
When you add in the air conditioning BTU’s it is more.
Five percent of the world’s energy is produced by nuclear.
Scientists
claim more but they don’t count the third world nations energy needs.
The moon imparts 2E20 jewels per second on each square meter on
the
earth twenty-four-hours a day moving the tides around and the magma
underneath our feet. How many watts of energy is that? One thousandths
of that energy distributed equally over the surface of the earth is
equivalent to 490 watts per square meter per hour.

The average input of energy the sun imparts to earth is only 350 watts
per square meter because the sun only warms one side of the earth at a
time while the other side is exposed to the cold of space. Going from
a cold winter to a hot summer the sun’s energy difference is only 20
watts per square meter per hour. The suns peak input to earth on a hot
day on the equator is 850 watts per square meter. It is much less when
it is cloudy making the average around 700 watts of thermal input at
the equator. You got to cut this in half because the other side of the
Earth is dark. There is 200,000 terrawatts of energy reaching the
surface of the Earth each hour. It is much less at higher latitudes
and practically zero above the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circles.
The snow and ice reflects much of the suns energy back into space at
latitudes above 23.5 degrees. By tilting the Earth 23.5 degrees in
increases the suns input to Earth by approximately 20%.
The new solar cells are capable of 40% efficiency so you can get a
peak of 280 watts per square meter at noon on a hot day.
The world’s current oil consumption is 85 to 90 billion barrels
per
day. Each barrel of oil produces 5.8 million BTU’s. What is more
important than the BTU’s release by this oil is the soot produced. The
micro soot is accumulative and causes what scientists call “global
dimming.

When China comes into the industrial age the global world oil
consumption will be over a 100-billion barrels of oil a day by 2010.
This figure does not count the oil consumed in production and
transportation. The industry won’t release these figures because they
don’t want the government to shut them down. Exxon made a 39-billion-
dollar profit last quarter—that is, after spending as much as possible
to keep the government from getting it. They would rather give it to
the government than pay off their lawsuits.
According to General Motors Corporation the catalytic converter
and
subsequent federal requirements have lowered greenhouse gasses by more
than 97% since the mid 1970’s.
The majority of the world’s electrical power is produced by big
jet
engines. Most of them have bad thermal efficiencies and the best ones
have about a 50% thermal efficiency rating. On top of that they
consume vast amounts of fresh water. Utility power plants are the
world’s largest consumer of fresh water on the planet and mankind’s
biggest contributor of heat to the planet. All the power plants in the
world produce 15-terrawatts of electric power per hour. This power
output will double within a decade with China coming on line. On top
of that you have the consumption of fossil fuel increasing to 10-
billion tons per year.

They are still burning several thousand acres of rain forest per day
to make charcoal for the steel industry and to furnish charcoal for
the locals to cook their food.

SOLUTIONS FOR GLOBAL WARMING

In order to compute the human effect on global warming per hour on
each square meter of earth you have to take the 90-billion barrels of
oil consumed per day and add the oil used in refining and transporting
it to market and divide that by the number of hours in a day (24) to
find the total number of barrels consumed per hour. You then multiply
this by the number of BTUs in a barrel. Add the total of waste heat
from atomic power plants, coal, natural gas, rice paddies, rotting
garbage heaps, cattle, elephants, sheep, cats and dogs plus the 6.7
billion humans themselves each radiating 340 BTU’s hour while sitting
in a chair then convert this to watts is a big job. After a while you
give up and throw in an arbitrary figure of about ten watts per square
meter and call it good.
The point is: we are releasing an 800-million year accumulation of
carbon resources in 100 years—carbon laid down using the invisible
light from Sirius B --light that is a million times more powerful than
our sun. Not only are we dumping heat into the environment in the form
of low energy photons it is the carbon soot that causes more global
warming than anything else--not to mention the irreparable damage it
is doing to our health.
I think hydrogen peroxide is one of several viable answers. Not the
diluted stuff in your medicine cabinet but a liquid that is much more
concentrated and easy to transport. It can be manufactured by excess
tidal and wind power. When you burn soft coal with hydrogen peroxide
there is practically no waste because there is almost enough oxygen in
it to completely combust the carbon and little or no atmospheric
oxygen is consumed. [The burn efficiency is about 70%.] You could
literally burn oily sand and get clean energy!
The same stuff can be burned in a diesel engine in your car. The
Germans were powering their submarines with it in World War II. If the
US Navy hadn’t towed them out and sunk them so that the technology
wouldn’t get into the hands of the private sector we would be
utilizing this source of energy today.
If NASA threw away their booster rockets fired with recycled rubber
tires and used hydrogen peroxide and diesel oil they would get 50%
more thrust with no pollution. This would allow them to put 50% larger
payloads into orbit. But, like most government projects they are
constantly shooting themselves in the foot due to mental constipation
brought about mostly by the educational system and the thick-headed
Germans like myself who are running the program
The newest solar cells are capable 40% production. There is a total of
200,000 terra-watts reaching the surface of the earth every hour of
the day but the low angel of incidence near the poles and reflection
off from ice reduces this amount considerably. The total number of
watts per square meter striking the earth near the equator is about a
thousand but due to cloud cover and the fact that half of the earth is
in the dark the average that can be utilized is about 350 watts per
square meter.
Windmills actually produce more power per square meter than solar
cells-- up to 40 K. W. per square meter thus leaving a much smaller
footprint on the earth. The little country of Germany has 21 giga-
watts of wind power pulling all the time. There are some areas where
the wind never stops blowing and there are some areas where the sun
never stops shining. We humans, if we are smart enough, should be able
to tap into at least a kilowatt of energy per square meter on earth.

There is a tremendous source of tidal energy in Alaska’s Turnagain Arm
and Knik Arm and there is a company in Canada that will put in a six-
lane, bridge across these bodies of water for free if we let them have
the energy. The turbines are like large revolving doors in a
department store big enough to let whales through. Whales as well as
salmon can go through without being harmed.
If the electrical energy from the tides on upper Cook Inlet was
utilized to make LH2 and H2O2 hydrogen peroxide it would furnish
enough energy to power most of the United States. All this technology
is well understood.
If we can get more of the wind, solar and tidal energy on line we can
use any one of these to make hydrogen peroxide from water to smelt
glass, steel and other things for export. The hydrogen peroxide can
even be used for rocket fuel.

GEOTHERMAL
None of the above mentioned potential energy sources count geothermal.
There is approximately 40 terrawatts leaking out of the surface of the
earth every hour of every day from natural geothermal vents. Iceland
gets almost all its power from geothermal. Instead of sitting there
waiting for Yellowstone to blow up wiping out a third of the United
States our government leaders should encourage energy companies to
drill around the area and use the steam to generate electricity.
There is enough potential geothermal energy in Yellowstone Park in the
giant underground caldera that extends south into Nevada and Arizona
to power the United States for the next ten-thousand thousand years.
Instead of waiting for it to blow up wiping off a third of the
population of the United States off the map we should be cooling it
off by pumping water down there and recycling the steam through giant
turbines.
What you don’t see in the human impact of global warming is the
micro
soot given off by all this activity including jet contrails that cause
global warming. There are countries in the world today that consume
one-tenth the amount of oil that we do and they have higher education,
a higher quality of life and they live ten years longer. They pay for
it but you don’t see them invading foreign nations and killing people
over oil.

The earth is loosing its atmosphere from a high of 1450 pounds per
square inch to it present level of 14.5 pounds per square inch. During
biblical times earth’s oxygen was 36% and now they say it is 20% but
these are old figures. It really is down to 18% and less inside
buildings where people are living and breathing the air. Obviously we
have a limited time on this planet until we burn up all the oxygen
have to go underground or out into space to find another planet to
colonize with lots of water and a breathable atmosphere. Such a planet
with an excess of incoming light in the UV spectrum to release free
oxygen with plant growth and a high pressure Co2 atmosphere might be a
little difficult to find—if not impossible.
The obvious lesson here is that we had better take care of our
atmosphere by not burning it and quit wasting our time and resources
fighting wars for planet domination to steal those resources. We need
to get on with the development of more benign energy sources such as
geothermal, hydrogen peroxide, fuel cells, wind, wave, and tidal
power. There is a host of other advanced concept energy sources such
as zero point, helium-3, earth energy, fusion and high voltage
capacitor storage of atmospheric phoneme. Do you remember Benjamin
Franklin flying a kite in an electrical storm to collect electrical
energy? He may have been on to something.

Present day humans were created as slaves to serve the giant Anunnaki—
the result of the mating of Nephilim (angels) with the primitive
inhabitants of Earth. DNA tests don’t lie. They release death row
prisoners on the basis of DNA. Human DNA is 98% the same as Chimpanzee
DNA; only chimps have 48 chromosomes while humans have 46. One
chromosome is missing and two others are fused together. During the
process of creation it was necessary to program some human genes to
worship their masters because it made them easier to control. This is
why modern day humans still need religion. In fact they feel naked
without religion.

Thousands of years of programming have made it easy for humans to give
up their soul, their free will, their body, their labor, their money
and even their morals to whatever religion feels good at the time.
Because of this humans are easily manipulated into killing each other
over theological semantics or false patriotism generated by government
propaganda. Add to this the subtle programming of government mandated
school systems that keep people ignorant and it is easy to see why
modern humans are so easily manipulated by contrived events to where
they will sacrifice their offspring to fight an imaginary enemy
dreamed up by presidential advisors to keep the economy rolling.
Global warming is about your eventual enslavement!
Check out our books on John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin and Joe
Bidenwww.GuardDogBooks.com&www.AlaskaPublishing.com

On Oct 15, 7:02 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Hank Kroll wrote:
My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In that case you wouldn't mind promoting a few supercomputer
simulations.

~ BG

On Oct 16, 12:14 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article 6hxJk.334622$TT4.282639@attbi_s22,
Sam Wormley wrote:

Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would
be of the order of several billion years instead of a mere 105 thousand
years. Which means that not many, if any, revolutions in that orbit
would have been completed during the lifetime so far of the Galaxy.
In addition, that "orbit" would be so easily disturbed by other stars
passing nearby that the stars would most likely be scattered from
one another before even half an orbit would have been completed.

An orbital period of a mere 105 thousand years would require an orbital
velocity of some 100 km/s which is way way beyond escape velocity for
such a system.

Hans Kroll has just revealed his total ignorance in orbital mechanics...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Supposedly our entire galaxy is trekking through the cosmos at 120 km/
s.

So, what's the big deal about 100 km/s?

~ BG

On Oct 16, 9:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article eYIJk.2020$%%2.1278@edtnps82,

Michael Tee wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would

why do you idiots bother with such idiots?

Mostly to try to educate others who may read this and who may be unaware
of this. If the idiot loses his "market" of people who are willing
to believe in him, he may eventually go silent. Perhaps I'm an idiot
too when doing this - but I prefer that over becoming a cynic.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Is this why you and others of your kind wouldn't allow a public owned
supercomputer to run off a few complex simulations?

You are aware of the original combined mass of the Sirius star/solar
system?

~ BG

On Oct 16, 12:07 am, ukastronomy
wrote:
On 16 Oct, 02:03, Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

What evidence can you provide for this claim?

How many people apart from yourself agree with your claim - where does
their published support (if any) appear?
--
Martin Nicholson - Daventry, UKhttp://www.martin-nicholson.info/index.htm
Dealing with John Greaves FAQhttp://www.geocities.com/badastrobuster/index.htm

You don't believe in ice core samples or diatoms?

You have some other significant stellar encounter that'll cycle nearby
our solar system every 105,000 years?

~ BG

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 16, 9:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article eYIJk.2020$%%2.1278@edtnps82,

Michael Tee wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would

why do you idiots bother with such idiots?

Mostly to try to educate others who may read this and who may be unaware
of this. If the idiot loses his "market" of people who are willing
to believe in him, he may eventually go silent. Perhaps I'm an idiot
too when doing this - but I prefer that over becoming a cynic.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Is this why you and others of your kind wouldn't allow a public owned
supercomputer to run off a few complex simulations?

WHAT ?????????????

Did I ever prohibit anyone to run simulations on a supercomputer?
No I don't think so (if you want to dispute this, please refer to
something where I wanted to prohibit this. You won't find it,
because I never did that).

BTW CPU power is hardly a matter anymore - the average laptop of today
has a CPU power which clearly exceeds the CPU power of the supercomputers
only a few decades ago such as the Cray-1, Cray-XMP, Cray-2 ....
So why don't you go ahead and run whatever complex simulations you
want on your laptop! I don't want to stop you, and even if I wanted
to I would be unable to do so. The only thing which can stop you is
your own lack of knowledge, skill, or motivation to create such a
simulation.

Good luck!


You are aware of the original combined mass of the Sirius star/solar
system?

The original mass hardly matters. What matters if you want our solar
system to orbit Sirius is the current mass of Sirius.


~ BG


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:14 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article 6hxJk.334622$TT4.282639@attbi_s22,
Sam Wormley wrote:

Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would
be of the order of several billion years instead of a mere 105 thousand
years. Which means that not many, if any, revolutions in that orbit
would have been completed during the lifetime so far of the Galaxy.
In addition, that "orbit" would be so easily disturbed by other stars
passing nearby that the stars would most likely be scattered from
one another before even half an orbit would have been completed.

An orbital period of a mere 105 thousand years would require an orbital
velocity of some 100 km/s which is way way beyond escape velocity for
such a system.

Hans Kroll has just revealed his total ignorance in orbital mechanics...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Supposedly our entire galaxy is trekking through the cosmos at 120 km/
s.

Our galaxy is trekking through space much faster than that, relative
to far-away galaxies. But that speed is irrelevant, since it won't
influence the speeds of the stars within our galaxy relative to one
another.


So, what's the big deal about 100 km/s?

The big deal is that we're talkning not about the speed of our etire
galaxy, but the speed of stars within our galaxy relative to one
another.

Suppose you're hit by a car travelling at 50 mph. You would die, or
at least be seriously injured by such a hit. How come? After all
we're all moving with some 500-1000 mph on the surface of the Earth
as the Earth rotates. And in our yearly orbit around the Sun we're
all travelling at some 67,000 mph. We're able to cope with these
huge velocities fine - so why would a car, travelling as slowly as
50 mph as it collided with a person, matter at all?

~ BG


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 15, 7:02 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Hank Kroll wrote:
My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In that case you wouldn't mind promoting a few supercomputer
simulations.

Isn't it better to check with observations of the real world first?

But go ahead with your simulation if you want. Start on your own laptop
- the laptops of today are very capable machines which have a computing
power clearly exceeding the supercomputers of only a few decades ago. Get
back here when you've got some promising results from your simulation.
Of course that will require that you explain to others exactly what you
simulated and why your results are promising - and that may of course be
an obstacle for you. But if you want others to fund computer time on
today's supercomputers for you, you must be able to motivate them for
doing that.

Good luck!


~ BG


--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/