Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote:
Siriusand 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 theSirius
star cluster, even thoughSiriushas 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 theSiriusstar/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.

Mainstream physics and science is not to be lightly discounted or
otherwise discarded. However, some items of our solar system seem to
have been added after the original formations of our sun and a few
planets, while others seem badly skewed because of nearby external
forces. It seems +/- 1 degree might be an acceptable standard for
being part of the original protoplanetary elliptic plane. However,
the more degrees off that plane, the more unlikely they existed from
the very start of our solar system.

Like those icy Pluto planetoids and Sedna at near 12 degrees most
certainly are not in the same plane. However, supposedly there are a
few interesting Kuiper and Oort retrograde orbits, although Sedna
isn't one of those. Noteworthy is that Cruithne has been a nearby
second moon of Earth, however oddly so and otherwise at nearly 20
degrees inclination is also not within the expected orbital plane,
just like our Selene/moon at 5+ degrees isn’t exactly flying within
the expected plane of our solar system.

Besides the usual orbital mechanics that can’t quite explain items
like Sedna with such minimal velocity and low density, as to why the
hell does Sedna bother to turn itself around and head way the hell
back out there? (are the Sedna electrons helping to repel it away from
those of our solar system electron outflux?)

With Sedna we're talking of an extremely deep elliptical trek of 76 AU
out to 976 AU and obviously back again, at an average orbital velocity
of 1.04 km/sec (about the same as our Selene/moon), with an overall
duration of 12,060 years (also given as 10,000 years by some), as
supposedly offering the 0.84 eccentric orbit in relationship with the
elliptic antipode focus that’s roughly 900 AU. I think it’s more of
an irregular elliptical trek that’s taking a tight turn at 76 AU and a
broad turn at 976 AU.

Just because something like Sedna as once upon a time having been
perturbed into an elliptical trek (most likely by Sirius B and/or from
that substantial Sirius molecular cloud of 12.5e6 Ms) , doesn't
explain why it's keeping that extreme elliptical pattern, unless the
stealth gravity or dark matter influence is still out there, and/or
the electrons emitted by Sedna are that much unusually greater
influence than previously thought. According to some, there’s also
another 40 some odd distant items as large or larger than Sedna.

In other words, the reduced velocity at 976 AU and relatively low mass
of Sedna simply isn’t worth enough kinetic energy in order to match or
exceed the orbital escape velocity, pretty much the same analogy that
applies as to why our solar system can not escape the extended
elliptic association we have had with the Sirius star/solar system, or
at least that of some barycenter dominated by the remaining 3.5
greater mass that used to be worth 12.5 Ms, and before then (250e6
BP) represented by the molecular cloud of 12.5e6 Ms.

How is it even remotely possible of orbital mechanics that applies to
the likes of Sedna and otherwise not to the stellar motions of nearby
solar systems?

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

On Aug 18, 9:15*am, BradGuth wrote:
Mainstream physics and science is not to be lightly discounted or
otherwise discarded. *However, some items of our solar system seem to
have been added after the original formations of our sun and a few
planets, while others seem badly skewed because of nearby external
forces. *It seems +/- 1 degree might be an acceptable standard for
being part of the original protoplanetary elliptic plane. *However,
the more degrees off that plane, the more unlikely they existed from
the very start of our solar system.

Like those icy Pluto planetoids and Sedna at near 12 degrees most
certainly are not in the same plane. *However, supposedly there are a
few interesting Kuiper and Oort retrograde orbits, although Sedna
isn't one of those. *Noteworthy is that Cruithne has been a nearby
second moon of Earth, however oddly so and otherwise at nearly 20
degrees inclination *is also not within the expected orbital plane,
just like our Selene/moon at 5+ degrees isn’t exactly flying within
the expected plane of our solar system.

Besides the usual orbital mechanics that can’t quite explain items
like Sedna with such minimal velocity and low density, as to why the
hell does Sedna bother to turn itself around and head way the hell
back out there? (are the Sedna electrons helping to repel it away from
those of our solar system electron outflux?)

With Sedna we're talking of an extremely deep elliptical trek of 76 AU
out to 976 AU and obviously back again, at an average orbital velocity
of 1.04 km/sec (about the same as our Selene/moon), with an overall
duration of 12,060 years (also given as 10,000 years by some), as
supposedly offering the 0.84 eccentric orbit in relationship with the
elliptic antipode focus that’s roughly 900 AU. *I think it’s more of
an irregular elliptical trek that’s taking a tight turn at 76 AU and a
broad turn at 976 AU.

Just because something like Sedna as once upon a time having been
perturbed into an elliptical trek (most likely by Sirius B and/or from
that substantial Sirius molecular cloud of 12.5e6 Ms) , doesn't
explain why it's keeping that extreme elliptical pattern, unless the
stealth gravity or dark matter influence is still out there, and/or
the electrons emitted by Sedna are that much unusually greater
influence than previously thought. *According to some, there’s also
another 40 some odd distant items as large or larger than Sedna.

In other words, the reduced velocity at 976 AU and relatively low mass
of Sedna simply isn’t worth enough kinetic energy in order to match or
exceed the orbital escape velocity, pretty much the same analogy that
applies as to why our solar system can not escape the extended
elliptic association we have had with the Sirius star/solar system, or
at least that of some barycenter dominated by the remaining 3.5
greater mass that used to be worth 12.5 Ms, and before then (250e6
BP) represented by the molecular cloud of 12.5e6 Ms.

How is it even remotely possible of orbital mechanics that applies to
the likes of Sedna and otherwise not to the stellar motions of nearby
solar systems?

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

Too bad so many topics or even alternative interpretations of the best
available science are considered as media taboo or nondisclosure
rated. It's almost exactly like Hitler or some weird religious cult/
cabal was still in charge of our public media.

~ BG

On Aug 18, 9:15*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote:



Siriusand 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 theSirius
star cluster, even thoughSiriushas 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 theSiriusstar/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.

Mainstream physics and science is not to be lightly discounted or
otherwise discarded. *However, some items of our solar system seem to
have been added after the original formations of our sun and a few
planets, while others seem badly skewed because of nearby external
forces. *It seems +/- 1 degree might be an acceptable standard for
being part of the original protoplanetary elliptic plane. *However,
the more degrees off that plane, the more unlikely they existed from
the very start of our solar system.

Like those icy Pluto planetoids and Sedna at near 12 degrees most
certainly are not in the same plane. *However, supposedly there are a
few interesting Kuiper and Oort retrograde orbits, although Sedna
isn't one of those. *Noteworthy is that Cruithne has been a nearby
second moon of Earth, however oddly so and otherwise at nearly 20
degrees inclination *is also not within the expected orbital plane,
just like our Selene/moon at 5+ degrees isn’t exactly flying within
the expected plane of our solar system.

Besides the usual orbital mechanics that can’t quite explain items
like Sedna with such minimal velocity and low density, as to why the
hell does Sedna bother to turn itself around and head way the hell
back out there? (are the Sedna electrons helping to repel it away from
those of our solar system electron outflux?)

With Sedna we're talking of an extremely deep elliptical trek of 76 AU
out to 976 AU and obviously back again, at an average orbital velocity
of 1.04 km/sec (about the same as our Selene/moon), with an overall
duration of 12,060 years (also given as 10,000 years by some), as
supposedly offering the 0.84 eccentric orbit in relationship with the
elliptic antipode focus that’s roughly 900 AU. *I think it’s more of
an irregular elliptical trek that’s taking a tight turn at 76 AU and a
broad turn at 976 AU.

Just because something like Sedna as once upon a time having been
perturbed into an elliptical trek (most likely by Sirius B and/or from
that substantial Sirius molecular cloud of 12.5e6 Ms) , doesn't
explain why it's keeping that extreme elliptical pattern, unless the
stealth gravity or dark matter influence is still out there, and/or
the electrons emitted by Sedna are that much unusually greater
influence than previously thought. *According to some, there’s also
another 40 some odd distant items as large or larger than Sedna.

In other words, the reduced velocity at 976 AU and relatively low mass
of Sedna simply isn’t worth enough kinetic energy in order to match or
exceed the orbital escape velocity, pretty much the same analogy that
applies as to why our solar system can not escape the extended
elliptic association we have had with the Sirius star/solar system, or
at least that of some barycenter dominated by the remaining 3.5
greater mass that used to be worth 12.5 Ms, and before then (250e6
BP) represented by the molecular cloud of 12.5e6 Ms.

How is it even remotely possible of orbital mechanics that applies to
the likes of Sedna and otherwise not to the stellar motions of nearby
solar systems?

Too bad so many honest topics or even alternative interpretations of
the best available science are considered as media taboo or
nondisclosure rated. It's almost exactly like Hitler or some weird
religious cult/cabal was still in charge of our public media. In this
case it's the laws of Newtonian Physics and orbital mechanics that's
forbidden.

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