|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 6, 9:59*am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Jul 6, 6:55 am, BradGuth wrote: Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. snip usual GuthBall frothing As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this, GuthBall, no matter how many time you have recited your usual and unintelligible gibberish, it remains just that: the rantings of a total loon. In that case, perhaps you and rabbi Saul should get a room. It seems now even Newtonian physics and your own peer accepted science is off-limits with you crazy kosher guys. ~ BG |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 6, 9:59*am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message ... On Jul 6, 6:55 am, BradGuth wrote: Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. snip usual GuthBall frothing As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this, GuthBall, no matter how many time you have recited your usual and unintelligible gibberish, it remains just that: the rantings of a total loon. In that case, perhaps you and rabbi Saul (aka Art Deco) should get a room. It seems now even the most peer reviewed interpretations of Newtonian physics and your own peer accepted science is suddenly off-limits with you crazy kosher guys. Local planets, moons and satellites go by Newtonian physics, but apparently stars and exoplanets by way of your mindset don't (especially of those we're headed towards don't count). ~ BG |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
As is, the 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force is
what represents a 4763:1 greater grip than our sun has on Sedna. Of course you can always trust the mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denial from our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps simply use either one of the following: Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force) http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html ~ BG |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their parrot media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy), and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg). First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having to fend for itself, at a place and time when our existing solar system wasn't any too far away. *Others of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6, while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of 1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly diameter that is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby cosmic molecular mass of 1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and singular Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 *peer reviewed and science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of eye-candy plus other collaborative peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what our FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. 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 exactly 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 rabbi shadow tries to do by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good. As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on little Sedna. Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps simply use either one of the following: Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force) http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius. That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any elliptical Newtonian trek should. Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so) Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified? In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of repulsion? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 11, 11:42*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote: In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their parrot media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy), and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg). First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having to fend for itself, at a place and time when our existing solar system wasn't any too far away. *Others of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6, while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of 1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly diameter that is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby cosmic molecular mass of 1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and singular Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 *peer reviewed and science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of eye-candy plus other collaborative peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what our FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. 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 exactly 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 rabbi shadow tries to do by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good. As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on little Sedna. *Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps simply use either one of the following: *Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force) *http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm *http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius. That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any elliptical Newtonian trek should. Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so) Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified? In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of repulsion? I'm asking nicely; how can the Newtonian physics laws of gravity be conditional? How can those Newtonian laws and those of orbital mechanics which apply for Sedna and the likes of 2005-VX3, and yet not apply for that of Sirius and our solar system? Do the electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 11, 11:42*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote: In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their parrot media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy), and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg). First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having to fend for itself, at a place and time when our existing solar system wasn't any too far away. *Others of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6, while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of 1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly diameter that is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby cosmic molecular mass of 1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and singular Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 *peer reviewed and science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of eye-candy plus other collaborative peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what our FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. 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 exactly 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 rabbi shadow tries to do by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good. As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on little Sedna. *Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps simply use either one of the following: *Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force) *http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm *http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius. That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any elliptical Newtonian trek should. Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so) Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified? In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of repulsion? I'm still asking nicely; how can the Newtonian physics laws of gravity be conditional? How can those Newtonian laws and otherwise those of orbital mechanics which apply for Sedna and even the likes of 2005-VX3, and yet according to mainstream naysayism do not apply for that of Sirius and our solar system? Do the electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much? What's the barycenter between us and the Sirius star/solar system? Why hasn’t the little Sirius C (.06 solar mass) been detected? On this trajectory pass we’re on, exactly when and how close will our passive solar system get to the Sirius star/solar system? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 11, 11:42*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote: In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their parrot media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy), and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg). First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having to fend for itself, at a place and time when our existing solar system wasn't any too far away. *Others of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6, while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of 1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly diameter that is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby cosmic molecular mass of 1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and singular Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 *peer reviewed and science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of eye-candy plus other collaborative peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what our FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. 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 exactly 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 rabbi shadow tries to do by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good. As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on little Sedna. *Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps simply use either one of the following: *Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force) *http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm *http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius. That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any elliptical Newtonian trek should. Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so) Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified? In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of repulsion? I'm still here and asking; how can those Newtonian physics laws of gravity be conditional and thus not apply to interstellar attraction? How can those Newtonian laws and otherwise orbital mechanics which apply for Sedna and even the likes of 2005-VX3, and yet according to mainstream naysayism do not apply for that of Sirius and our solar system? Do the electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much? What's the barycenter situation between us and the Sirius star/solar system? Why hasn’t the little Sirius C (.06 solar mass) been detected? On the trajectory path and pass we’re on, exactly when and how close will our passive solar system get to the Sirius star/solar system? ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote:
Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their puppet media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our encountering another galaxy), and especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth. First off, it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 125,000 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having 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 more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25 million, while still others yet would prefer a more robust cloud worthy of 12.5 million solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite a stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud of originally near 100 ly diameter is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby mass, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 plus other peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. Where's our TRACEe3 and 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 of mostly pretend Atheists, as well as republican faith-based bigots and typically closed mindsets of our Usenet/newsgroup cabal that are enforcing their mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do), are hopefully not representing or otherwise speaking on behalf of our FAS. *~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” What would have happened within our solar system and the environment of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of the same molecular cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses, as what had just given birth to those nearby Sirius stars and such having taken at least ten millions to a hundred some odd million years in order to create? ~ BG |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 15, 10:33*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote: Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their puppet media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our encountering another galaxy), and especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth. First off, it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 125,000 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having 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 more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25 million, while still others yet would prefer a more robust cloud worthy of 12.5 million solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite a stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud of originally near 100 ly diameter is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby mass, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 plus other peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. Where's our TRACEe3 and 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 of mostly pretend Atheists, as well as republican faith-based bigots and typically closed mindsets of our Usenet/newsgroup cabal that are enforcing their mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do), are hopefully not representing or otherwise speaking on behalf of our FAS. *~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” What would have happened within our solar system and the environment of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of the same molecular cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses, as what had just given birth to those nearby Sirius stars and such having taken at least ten millions to a hundred some odd million years in order to create? I'm still asking nicely; how can the Newtonian physics laws of gravity be conditional? (remember that perpetual mainstream denial and systematic obfuscation don’t count) How can those Newtonian laws and otherwise those matters of orbital mechanics which apply for the likes of our solar system holding onto Sedna and even the likes of wussy little 2005-VX3, and yet according to mainstream naysayism do not apply for that of nearby Sirius and our somewhat wussy little solar system? Do those electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much? What's the barycenter between us and the Sirius star/solar system? Why hasn’t the little Sirius C (.06 solar mass) been observed? On this stellar accelerating trajectory path, and closing at –7.6+ km/ s that we’re currently on and only increasing that velocity, exactly when and how close will our passive solar system get to the vibrant and 3.5 fold massive Sirius star/solar system? In the past, what should have happened within our solar system and specifically to the environment of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of that same molecular cloud of 1.25e61.25e7 solar masses that had just previously given birth to those nearby Sirius stars, and from such a stellar birthing process as having taken at least ten million to a hundred some odd million years in order to create? What’s keeping stars that have become close enough, and even moving towards one another, from simply following the natural progression of Newtonian physics, by way of eventually combining or merging their mass into becoming a truly large supernovae? Electron Attraction and Repulsion http://www.smeter.net/daily-facts/6/fact1.php Last modified: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:44:57 GMT “Gravity attracts two electrons towards each other, but their identical negative charges cause an electrical repulsion force. If the gravity force and the electrical force were equal in strength there would be no net force of attraction or repulsion. However, it is well known that electrons repel each other, so the electrical force is stronger than the gravitational force, but how much stronger? The force ratio is enormous. The electrical force is 4.17x1042 times stronger than the gravitational force regardless of the distance between two electrons. There is a strange thing about that ratio. If the age of the universe is 8.34x1010 years, the age of the universe is 4.17x1042 times greater than the time required for an electromagnetic wave to pass across a proton (10-24 seconds). So, is the gravitational constant related to the age of the universe? Probably not, but it might be.” As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding/binding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on little Sedna. Not to mention 2005-VX3 that’s worth merely 1.709e9 N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system tidal radius, thereby representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of having nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal radii hold on us. Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can simply do the math yourself, or perhaps use either one of the following: Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force) http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html Now we should consider the energy (E=MV2) of our 2.02e30 kg closing in at the differential velocity of 7.6 km/s upon Sirius isn’t none too shabby, offering 1.167e38 joules (1.167e38 N.m). This kind of makes the 1.417e17N of gravitational force seem entirely insignificant, but none the less a constant applied force that’s only increasing by that same pesky inverse square law as we get closer. Obviously the velocity of mass is dominating this stellar interaction between our sun and the still massive and extremely nearby Sirius star system that we’re headed towards, somewhat like we’re headed towards the Andromeda galaxy, and together we’re all headed into the “Great Attractor”. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth
On Jul 15, 10:33*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote: Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics. In spite of whatever those mainstream textbooks and their puppet media has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite possibly contributed from our encountering another galaxy), and especially terrestrial illuminating of the first 200~250 million years worth. First off, it took a cosmic molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 125,000 solar masses in order to produce such a 12.5 mass worthy star system, leaving 99.99% of that molecular mass as supposedly blown away and having 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 more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25 million, while still others yet would prefer a more robust cloud worthy of 12.5 million solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have been quite a stellar birthing process, especially if the remains of this terrific cloud of originally near 100 ly diameter is suddenly nowhere to be found. In any case, there's no way that our passive little solar system wasn't somehow directly affected by and otherwise having become tidal radius interrelated with such a nearby mass, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual barycenter that's primarily dominated by the Sirius star/solar system. Lo and behold, it seems that numerous mergers of galactic proportions isn’t nearly as uncommon as some of our perpetual naysayers and Big Bang of devout OT thumpers might care to suggest. Our Milky Way Galaxy and its Companions (we are not alone) *http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjansen/l...ocalgroup.html 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 plus other peer replicated research), our Milky Way is made up of at least two galactic units, with more of the same on their blue-shifted way towards encountering us (namely Andromeda). *Seems hardly fair considering that everything was supposedly created via one singular Big Bang, not to mention that hundreds to perhaps thousands of galaxies seem rather nicely headed into the Great Attractor (including us) for their final demise and/or rebirth. Don’t forget to appreciate those Hubble, KECK and multiple other archives (including those of what FAS has compiled) depicting “colliding galaxies”, as well as soon to become ESA color/hue 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 grown via mergers. Where's our TRACEe3 and 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 of mostly pretend Atheists, as well as republican faith-based bigots and typically closed mindsets of our Usenet/newsgroup cabal that are enforcing their mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do), are hopefully not representing or otherwise speaking on behalf of our FAS. *~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” What would have happened within our solar system and the environment of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of the same molecular cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses, as what had just given birth to those nearby Sirius stars and such having taken at least ten millions to a hundred some odd million years in order to create? Why is it that the laws of physics, the best available science that's peer replicated to death, and the subsequent technology that works likes a charm on Earth or on behalf of anything our DARPA and NASA wants to do or would fully support doing, doesn't function on behalf of anything related to the Sirius star/solar system or the planet Venus? As of lately, even the Newtonian laws of gravity do not seem to apply, except as to whatever our DARPA and NASA cares to invest our hard earned public loot into. Is it just me? ~ BG |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Brad Guth is...... | OM | History | 0 | December 26th 03 11:34 PM |