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

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/

On Oct 21, 3:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
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/

Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

~ BG

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:

Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?




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

On Oct 21, 2:13 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?

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

Thanks so much, as I sort of knew that much but wasn't willing to so
easily give up on my manifesto without a good fight.

I still want to see everything plugged into a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator that we can fudge those numbers here and there, just
like others get to do in order to better establish their bragging
rights as based upon public funded eye-candy.

~ BG

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?

Thanks so much, as I sort of knew that much but wasn't willing to so
easily give up on my manifesto without a good fight.

Why are you using arguments you already know is wrong? Doing so is
disastrous for our credibility....


I still want to see everything plugged into a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator that we can fudge those numbers here and there, just
like others get to do in order to better establish their bragging
rights as based upon public funded eye-candy.

To successfully promote a theory you can't just run some piece of fun
and fancy software, and fudge some numbers here and there to get the
result you want without any understanding of why you got that result.

In this particular case (your claim that the Sun orbits Sirius) such
a piece of fancy software isn't even needed. You only need paper
and pencil, a pocket calculator, and some knowledge of fundamental
celestial mechanics to figure out why it cannot be so, given the
actual observations we have of the stars near our Sun. If you
lack the knowledge, I recommend this book as a good introduction
to the subject: http://www.willbell.com/math/mc7.htm
It seems to be out of print now, however used copies can still be
obtained at Amazon.com

Good luck!




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

On Oct 21, 11:44 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?

Thanks so much, as I sort of knew that much but wasn't willing to so
easily give up on my manifesto without a good fight.

Why are you using arguments you already know is wrong? Doing so is
disastrous for our credibility....

I still want to see everything plugged into a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator that we can fudge those numbers here and there, just
like others get to do in order to better establish their bragging
rights as based upon public funded eye-candy.

To successfully promote a theory you can't just run some piece of fun
and fancy software, and fudge some numbers here and there to get the
result you want without any understanding of why you got that result.

In this particular case (your claim that the Sun orbits Sirius) such
a piece of fancy software isn't even needed.

There you go again. I've never insisted that our solar system is in
orbit of Sirius.

What's wrong with our orbiting a barycenter?

Perhaps it is yourself that needs a reality check of your reading
comprehension skills.

You only need paper
and pencil, a pocket calculator, and some knowledge of fundamental
celestial mechanics to figure out why it cannot be so, given the
actual observations we have of the stars near our Sun. If you
lack the knowledge, I recommend this book as a good introduction
to the subject: http://www.willbell.com/math/mc7.htm
It seems to be out of print now, however used copies can still be
obtained at Amazon.com

Good luck!

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

Thanks once again. I'm sure that it's pointless to claim what seems
obvious and most likely the long term cycle of terrestrial ice and
thaw. Obviously you have a better answer that you're keeping as a
secret, just for the fun of it.

What about considering multiple hydrogen shell flashover (aka slow
nova) events from Sirius B? (?one every 105,000 years?)

~ BG

In article ,
BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 21, 11:44 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 21, 2:13 pm, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

Since the launch of the Hipparcos satellite, the trigonometric parallax
of Sirius can be measured with an accuracy of a fraction of a percent.
Perhaps you know that the trigonometric parallax yields the distance
directly, and is not sensitive to interstellar extinction.

The "mutual closing rate" (i.e. the radial velocity) is measured
through shifts in the wavelength of spectral lines, and that method too
is insensitive to interstellar extinction.

Anything else you'd like to know?

Thanks so much, as I sort of knew that much but wasn't willing to so
easily give up on my manifesto without a good fight.

Why are you using arguments you already know is wrong? Doing so is
disastrous for our credibility....

I still want to see everything plugged into a fully interactive 3D
orbital simulator that we can fudge those numbers here and there, just
like others get to do in order to better establish their bragging
rights as based upon public funded eye-candy.

To successfully promote a theory you can't just run some piece of fun
and fancy software, and fudge some numbers here and there to get the
result you want without any understanding of why you got that result.

In this particular case (your claim that the Sun orbits Sirius) such
a piece of fancy software isn't even needed.

There you go again. I've never insisted that our solar system is in
orbit of Sirius.

What's wrong with our orbiting a barycenter?

Our speed relative to Sirius still exceeds the escape velocity.....

Perhaps it is yourself that needs a reality check of your reading
comprehension skills.

You only need paper
and pencil, a pocket calculator, and some knowledge of fundamental
celestial mechanics to figure out why it cannot be so, given the
actual observations we have of the stars near our Sun. If you
lack the knowledge, I recommend this book as a good introduction
to the subject: http://www.willbell.com/math/mc7.htm
It seems to be out of print now, however used copies can still be
obtained at Amazon.com

Good luck!

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

Thanks once again. I'm sure that it's pointless to claim what seems
obvious and most likely the long term cycle of terrestrial ice and
thaw. Obviously you have a better answer that you're keeping as a
secret, just for the fun of it.

What about considering multiple hydrogen shell flashover (aka slow
nova) events from Sirius B? (?one every 105,000 years?)

Should I take that as an acceptance on your part that the Sun and
Sirius does not orbit some common barycenter ?????


~ BG



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

"Paul Schlyter" wrote:

Suppose you're hit by a car travelling at 50 mph. You would die, or
at least be seriously injured by such a hit.

Not if you're from Sweden:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mPx7A-WDZzo

;-)