Definition of a planet

In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:
Answer me this one; which direction is the Sirius Oort cloud rotating
in respect to that of ours?

Define in what field of reference you would measure it - first I heard
Sirius had an Oort cloud...

I'd thought that most all significant star/solar systems offered some
degree of an Oort cloud and/or at least a Kuiper belt that's chuck full
of nifty little orbs and debris, thus I'm assuming a massive star/solar
system like the Sirius solar system should have managed at least a
little something similar that's perhaps going in the general direction
as Sirius-b.

Are you thinking that perhaps our's is the only such star and planetary
system that's hosting the likes of Kuiper belt and Oort cloud items
worth considering? If so, why are we so special?


I never said that - I deal with definites, not maybe. Seeing as Sirius
is a double, all bets are off

Obviously our best instruments are put off by the vast intensity of
Sirius-a and even of Sirius-b is actually extremely UV-a/b/c bright,
thus whatever's of a Sirius Kuiper/Oort likeness is lost somewhat
within the glare and/or having otherwise been overwhelmed by the local
amount of available energy that we can't seem to squint hard enough to
see of whatever there's to behold.

So, if given the Sirius debris is most likely going along for the ride,
such as moving along with the somewhat vertical direction of rotation
as that established by Sirius-b, whereas if that's to be given in any
rotational relationship to us; which direction is the orbit of Sirius-b
traveling with regard to the rotation of our Kuiper belt and Oort
cloud?

As we get closer to one another (my research swag thus far points to
roughly every 105,000 years), I'd have to imagine that the orbit of
Sirius-b should become a whole lot less vertical and more horizontal,
and certainly more elliptically distorted or stretched out and
unavoidably better aligned to that of our disk of planets and outer
debris, that which includes the somewhat large items as icy Sedna.

This is somewhat more than a little interesting:
http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/a...f_heaven.shtml
"Pluto, the outermost planet, went through its perihelion of its highly
eccentric orbit which lies within Neptune's orbital path and is
inclined by approx. 17 ° relative to the general planetary plane.
Pluto's orbit is oriented towards the common center of gravity
between Procyon and Sirius. It is remarkable that the orbital
relationship between Pluto (248.02172 tropical years) and Sirius B
(49.6 years) is almost 5 to 1. Also, the approx. 17 ° deviation and
direction seem to have a strange relationship to the 16.6° declination
of Sirius with respect to the celestial equator."
-
Brad Guth


--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

I'd asked the following;
: Are you thinking that perhaps our's is the only such star and
planetary
: system that's hosting the likes of Kuiper belt and Oort cloud items
: worth considering? If so, why are we so special?

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
I never said that - I deal with definites, not maybe. Seeing as Sirius
is a double, all bets are off
But binaries are by far the norm, we're not. I think even trinaries
are perhaps more common place than of what we've got to work with.
Planets have since been detected as associated with such multiple star
enabled though obviously complex solar systems, so why not either of
the Sirius stars as having hosted a planet or two?

Since you obviously haven't evidence to the contrary; why not allow for
a Sirius form of Kuiper belt and perhaps even that of having an
extended Oort cloud?

Not that there's any certainty of a humanly livable planet still
existing within the Sirius star/solar system, but why are you into
avoiding any topic that includes Sirius by way of shutting yourself
down?

Got any other star of significance that we'll swing ourselves past
every 105,000 years?

Is it because whatever potential Sirians or other ETs are not going to
be sufficiently Jewish or of something other than Muslim or God forbid
of that nasty Cathar religion that'll not suit your status quo?

As far as I can tell, there's no laws of astrophysics/cosmology or that
of regular physics against having the Sirius star system as once upon a
time having contributed planets and moons over to such a nearby though
obviously heathen populated and otherwise highly bigoted solar system
like ours.

BTW; there's nothing the least bit of "definites" with regards to that
of your intellectually and biologically blind SETI (other than tax
avoidance), or much less of whatever's hundreds, thousands and millions
upon millions of light years away from us is just so much spendy
eye-candy that gets reinterpreted and published throughout spendy
science journals and into textbooks in order to suit the next available
grant or other funding that's up for grabs.

Instead of being another typical two-faced or three-faced Usenet
naysayer, why not just share with others as to which way the Sirius
star system is rotating in relationship to us? or is even that asking
too much?
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:

BTW; there's nothing the least bit of "definites" with regards to that
of your intellectually and biologically blind SETI (other than tax
avoidance), or much less of whatever's hundreds, thousands and millions
upon millions of light years away from us is just so much spendy
eye-candy that gets reinterpreted and published throughout spendy
science journals and into textbooks in order to suit the next available
grant or other funding that's up for grabs.

Instead of being another typical two-faced or three-faced Usenet
naysayer, why not just share with others as to which way the Sirius
star system is rotating in relationship to us? or is even that asking
too much?

Now you've gone back to nonsense.....

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

What was yo Mama thinkin when she named you "Phineas T Puddleduck"?


"Phineas T Puddleduck" wrote in
message news:210620062247545233%phineaspuddleduck@googlema il.com_NOSPAM...
In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:

BTW; there's nothing the least bit of "definites" with regards to that
of your intellectually and biologically blind SETI (other than tax
avoidance), or much less of whatever's hundreds, thousands and millions
upon millions of light years away from us is just so much spendy
eye-candy that gets reinterpreted and published throughout spendy
science journals and into textbooks in order to suit the next available
grant or other funding that's up for grabs.

Instead of being another typical two-faced or three-faced Usenet
naysayer, why not just share with others as to which way the Sirius
star system is rotating in relationship to us? or is even that asking
too much?

Now you've gone back to nonsense.....

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

In article _9jmg.591$Nv.6@fed1read10, Mij Adyaw
wrote:

What was yo Mama thinkin when she named you "Phineas T Puddleduck"?



Probably the same your dad was thinking when the best part of you rang
down his leg.

*plonk*

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

Joseph Lazio wrote:
Perhaps a better question to ask is whether a moon is in some sense
"primordial," having been formed at or about the same time as the
planet and in the same region of the solar system, or whether it is
"captured," having formed elsewhere and through dynamics later
captured into orbit about the planet. This is a question that can be
answered (or at least addressed). For instance, based on their
orbits, it is highly likely that the Galilean satellites of Jupiter
were primordial, while many of its outer, smaller moons are captured.

Perhaps you'll have better luck getting an honest topic contribution
than I've obtained as to our once upon a time icy proto-moon coming in
from either our local outer limits, or perhaps as having been derived
from a sufficiently nearby star system that was somewhat in the binary
complex mode of getting rid of a few spare planets and moons.

This is somewhat more than a little interesting:
http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/a...f_heaven.shtml
"Pluto, the outermost planet, went through its perihelion of its highly
eccentric orbit which lies within Neptune's orbital path and is
inclined by approx. 17 ° relative to the general planetary plane.
Pluto's orbit is oriented towards the common center of gravity
between Procyon and Sirius. It is remarkable that the orbital
relationship between Pluto (248.02172 tropical years) and Sirius B
(49.6 years) is almost 5 to 1. Also, the approx. 17 ° deviation and
direction seem to have a strange relationship to the 16.6° declination
of Sirius with respect to the celestial equator."
-
Brad Guth

In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:

This is somewhat more than a little interesting:
http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/a...f_heaven.shtml
"Pluto, the outermost planet, went through its perihelion of its highly
eccentric orbit which lies within Neptune's orbital path and is
inclined by approx. 17 ° relative to the general planetary plane.
Pluto's orbit is oriented towards the common center of gravity
between Procyon and Sirius. It is remarkable that the orbital
relationship between Pluto (248.02172 tropical years) and Sirius B
(49.6 years) is almost 5 to 1. Also, the approx. 17 ° deviation and
direction seem to have a strange relationship to the 16.6° declination
of Sirius with respect to the celestial equator."

If you think our solar system and sirius are linked in any way save
coincidence... then I am gobsmacked.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
If you think our solar system and sirius are linked in any way save
coincidence... then I am gobsmacked.

That's certainly an impressive word, gobsmacked.
Is that why you're not about to contribute or otherwise share and share
alike in whatever should be of hard-science information, because you're
"gobsmacked"?

Now you're stipulating as of all of the sudden that our own galaxy and
of whatever's most local to our stellar and/or co-stellar existence is
purely unregulated by way of some random "coincidence", or perhaps as
I'd say via happenstance?

Why are the laws of your applied physics/astrophysics suddenly
different in order to suit your naysay mindset?

Besides the odds of possibly having made another mistake, of which
you've honestly stipulated that you've made your fair share of such
mistakes, yet this time what are you being gosh darn so afraid of?
-
Brad Guth

In article . com, Brad
Guth wrote:

Now you're stipulating as of all of the sudden that our own galaxy and
of whatever's most local to our stellar and/or co-stellar existence is
purely unregulated by way of some random "coincidence", or perhaps as
I'd say via happenstance?

Why are the laws of your applied physics/astrophysics suddenly
different in order to suit your naysay mindset?

Please educate me on the nature of their link. This should be good...

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."

In article .com,
Brad Guth wrote:

What the hell "link" are you talking about, especially since there are
so many links worth taking into consideration?

Or, don't you believe that stuff typically and rather unavoidably
orbits other stuff?

Obviously you and of your "agnostic" science don't believe in the 225
million year galactic cycle. Why am I not the least bit surprised
since you don't believe in pictures made of 36-looks/pixel worth of
radar imaging truth.

Just answer the question, or share as to whom otherwise may know the
answer, as to which way the Sirius star system is rotating with respect
to our wussy solar system's rotation.

Not only do I not know, I don't care. Its inconsequential...

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."