Addressing the formation of the solar system

On Apr 6, 10:20*pm, BURT wrote:
How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?

How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?

There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
for the order of the solar system we now see?

Nobody can do it. And never will.

Mitch Raemsch

Here’s my revised/updated reply to Paul A (pnals), as being our
resident diehard anti-revisionist.

On Apr 7, 11:07 pm, wrote:
On Apr 7, 5:58 pm, BradGuth wrote:

You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.

************

Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
200-300 million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.

Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
the system will be perhaps something like this one;

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111

So, you're another one of the ultra creation and forever expansion
purest at heart, that doesn't believe there's ever anything rogue
going on, no such mergers or encounters of any importance taking place
and otherwise no significant cosmic interactions of any kind, and the
Great Attractor plus a good number of colliding galaxies simply do not
exist. Well, aren't you special.


There is nothing special about the Sirius system, there are thousands
and thousands of others out there just like it.

Sure, rogue events might happen here and there, but these would be
mostly in globular clusters where such chance encounters would be more
likely to occur.

\Paul A

You realize what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light
year, highly dynamic and hugely volumetric sphere of sufficient cosmic
saturated gas as of 300 million some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen
and otherwise helium that was sufficiently star creation worthy, and
situated right next door to our solar system, whereas instead of being
gathered up by our nearby and well formulated tidal radius of gravity
influence, having instead independently formulated itself into a nifty
pair of truly massive stars (Sirius B of 9 solar masses and Sirius A
of 2.5 solar masses, plus having created at least a third significant
body of .06 solar mass as Sirius C).

Did I get that right?

Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
been closer as of 300 million years ago, you're talking about a
sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of roughly 12.5 solar
masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), as happening right next
door if not damn near on top of and/or easily including us, and it
just doesn't add up as to why that horrific nearby amount of such
electric charged hydrogen wasn't the least bit attracted to our pre-
existing solar system mass of 2e30 kg. I mean to ask, what the hell
was wrong with all of that available hydrogen and helium? And why
didn’t we get our fair share?

In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar molecular hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3,
though actually it’s of less cosmic ISM density because of such gas
being hot as hell and being continually tidal force pulled apart by
the gravity other nearby stars (such as our sun), so let us make it
worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a gaseous populated
sphere of 18.5 light years diameter at 100% stellar formation
efficiency, and since we can safely say this star creating process is
never that good, so perhaps 33,000 ly3 as a collective gravitational
collapse worthy sphere of 40 ly is more like it. The “Jeans Mass” for
accommodating a sufficient “triggered star formation” is suggesting
much greater solar mass ratios of at least 1000:1 required for the
accretion process, of which puts us smack within the center realm of
whatever culmination of matter and events created Sirius ABC, making
us very much a part of the same stellar formation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation

Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius
going red-giant postal on us, and yet somehow we remained unaffected?
(\Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)

Perhaps if something of mass were to merge into a sufficient molecular
cloud of hydrogen and helium, such as a brown dwarf of 10~100 Jm, or
possibly a small antimatter black hole could have been the stellar
seed, but perhaps that kind of reverse or anti-nova too should have
affected our solar system that was likely situated within the same
molecular cloud.

Within many complex theories to pick from http://
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp, supposedly the final
straw of our dinosaur extinction process took place as of merely 65
million years ago, of which seems to suggest the nearby red-giant and
subsequent slow nova of Sirius B (our second sun) becoming a white
dwarf and having lost its tidal radius grip on whatever planets,
planetoids and moons would have been a most likely contributor of this
otherwise robust biodiversity demise. Clearly no one cosmic and/or
terrestrial event caused the great extinction process, although
physical impacts from the sudden demise of the Sirius B solar system
(perhaps including our obtaining and icy Selene as our moon) would
certainly have finished off most of whatever was left of such life on
Earth.

Of course, here in Google Groups (Usenet/newsgroups) land of mostly
insurmountable naysayism, obfuscation, denial and above all anti-
revision mindsets, you’d think there would be a little room for the
give and take of fresh ideas, especially since so much of astrophysics
upon what we thought we knew has been recently tossed out the
proverbial window. Meanwhile, the most vibrant and interesting star
system that’s situated right next to us remains as oddly taboo/
nondisclosure rated, as though our NASA had once landed on it, or that
it’s hiding OBL plus all of those Muslim WMD along with all of those
SEC red-flag reports that were never acted upon.

~ BG

On 09/04/09 15:53, Martin Brown wrote:

The full article is online at arXiv without paying Natures extortionate
fees.

I have a subscription courtesy of my missus' job... :-)

But it still doesn't allow you to send a message at faster than light
speed. The "information" being shared by the photons is beyond our control.

Ah, but then I didn't say "send a message", I said "transfer
information". And I suspect the former is only a matter of time. I
recall various 19th century scientists saying that electricity was an
interesting but useless curiosity, or that someone travelling faster
than 10mph would be suffocated due to lack of air.

Newton required gravity with infinite speed action at a distance to have
stable orbits around the sun. He wasn't keen on it either, but it took a
long while before a new more complete theory could solve the puzzle.

Quite. Certainly one day, probably quite soon, something will clarify
our understanding one way or the other. Till then I'm content to wait
and see - but my sense of historical perspective suggests to me that
whatever we currently consider impossible may one day turn out to be
possible after all.

On Apr 9, 9:13*am, Mark McIntyre
wrote:
On 09/04/09 15:53, Martin Brown wrote:

The full article is online at arXiv without paying Natures extortionate
fees.

I have a subscription courtesy of my missus' job... :-)

But it still doesn't allow you to send a message at faster than light
speed. The "information" being shared by the photons is beyond our control.

Ah, but then I didn't say "send a message", I said "transfer
information". And I suspect the former is only a matter of time. I
recall various 19th century scientists saying that electricity was an
interesting but useless curiosity, or that someone travelling faster
than 10mph would be suffocated due to lack of air.

Newton required gravity with infinite speed action at a distance to have
stable orbits around the sun. He wasn't keen on it either, but it took a
long while before a new more complete theory could solve the puzzle.

Quite. Certainly one day, probably quite soon, something will clarify
our understanding one way or the other. Till then I'm content to wait
and see - but my sense of historical perspective suggests to me that
whatever we currently consider impossible may one day turn out to be
possible after all.

The quantum transfer of information at FTL should become doable on the
interstellar scale. We're just too stuck in our own mainstream
obfuscation and perpetual denial to appreciate the quantum FTL
possibilities.

For each and every new and/or improved interpretation that could lead
us down a correct path, there are at least a thousand nasty gauntlets
of insurmountable mindsets (many of them faith-based) to overcome.

It's as though we're breaking some kind of God posted speed limit, and
the cost of that speeding ticket is worth more than all the tea in
China, so to speak.

~ BG

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
"Martin wrote in message

Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!

Sure...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.

More than that, you can change the parameters yourself.
It adds the speed of light to the speed of the source moving in
a Keplerian orbit and out pops the light curves of Algol, delta-Cepheus,
V 1493 Aql and many others, all done by mathemagic.
Real data that can't be modelled by your only-one-speed-of-light-allowed
religion.
Your conventional explanation:
Algol -- eclipsed by a "dark" star.
delta-Cepheus -- a huff puff star that thinks its a blow fish.
V 1493 Aql - blows itself to smithereens twice in 3 months, settles
back to normal.

Of course, they a just are bunch of stars, not worth looking at when
you have the shining light of the brilliant Einstein telling you what to
think.


Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
than light then, religious fanatic!

Martin is a little out of date, is all.

Martin is a faithful follower of the gospel according to Rabbi Saint
Einstein
the Divine and a fantasizing ****wit; you are years out of date.

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 11:33, Androcles wrote:

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

If your message were genuinely automated, it'd be busy sending yourself
the same message....

*plonk*

Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.

Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.

There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.

This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.

You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.

I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.

On Apr 9, 10:15*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...

On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
"Martin *wrote in message

Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!

Sure...
* *http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls

This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.

More than that, you can change the parameters yourself.
It adds the speed of light to the speed of the source moving in
a Keplerian orbit and out pops the light curves of Algol, delta-Cepheus,
V 1493 Aql and many others, all done by mathemagic.
Real data that can't be modelled by your only-one-speed-of-light-allowed
religion.
Your conventional explanation:
Algol -- eclipsed by a "dark" star.
delta-Cepheus -- a huff puff star that thinks its a blow fish.
V 1493 Aql - blows itself to smithereens twice in 3 months, settles
back to normal.

Of course, they a just are bunch of stars, not worth looking at when
you have the shining light of the brilliant Einstein telling you what to
think.

Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
than light then, religious fanatic!

Martin is a little out of date, is all.

Martin is a faithful follower of the gospel according to Rabbi Saint
Einstein
the Divine and a fantasizing ****wit; you are years out of date.

Quantum FTL travel should become a reality, if not existing as is
before so many dumbfounded eyes. However, if mainstream folks simply
can't think outside of their Einstein box, then perhaps only a black
hole will give such mindset souls what they desire.

~ BG

"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Mark Earnest" wrote in message
...

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Apr 8, 6:14 pm, "Mark Earnest" wrote:
"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message

...



On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:

Science is the religion, not theism.

This is axiomatically false, both by the definition of science, and by
the
tenets of the Christian church (in particular the dogma of RC'ism).

In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...

By definition, gods are immortal and all powerful. Two of the above
are
dead, the third has no illusions of immortality. At most, you can
equate
the above to prophets.

In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,

That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate,
even if
you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last
year a
group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
supralight speed. And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually
travel
faster than light.

That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.



an object in motion stays in motion.

A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.

Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.



Compare this with the Nicene Creed, which requires belief without
evidence, and the first part of the Athanasian Creed, which requires
adherence to Catholicism but offers no rationale or logic. And don't
even
get me started on the mandatory seven sacraments which basically boil
down
to "don't forget to tip your waiter, or verily he shall nod to the
heavies
near the door".

I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.



In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that
decide
if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
attempt to throw you out on your can.

In /every/ sphere of human endeavour you have those who have drawn
power
and influence from the status quo, and who will stop at nothing to
retain
it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews,
moslems,
christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and dodos, and
took
fire and sword to Africa and America. Some did it in the name of
religion,
some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.

Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha
Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics
of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."

With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never
get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.

That is why today's science sucks.



Theism is just a mode of operation.
Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.

Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....

We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.

If one of our probes bumps into an ET, our job is essentially done.

Sending out a million probes rather than one, improves our odds by
1e6:1 in favor of making contact.

Why is NASA sending out probes to find E.T.'s, anyway?
Before launching Voyager, they should have surmised that
if E.T. were smart enough to come to it, they would surely be
smart enough to come all the way here, to Earth.
If E.T. were really, really smart he'd use satellite dishes and digital
cable
to broadcast his TV and saving us the trouble of searching for him
with radio telescopes and setting up organisations called SETI, the
Search for Extra Terrestrial stupIdity. On the other hand he could be
as dumb as Carl Sagan was.

E.T. may indeed be smart, but that may not have occured to him.
And how would he know about SETI if he was still on his planet back home?

"Mark McIntyre" wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 02:20, Mark Earnest wrote:
(I wrote)
Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the
probability
of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect each other?

Not much,

Provide the stats please.

I just did.


seeing as the stars are moving so very, very slow.

Er... the sun is travelling at about 500,000 miles an hour.


You know nothing about relativity then. Stars aren't moving at all,
until you compare their state to that of something else.




Notice that the Big Dipper is still the Big Dipper thousands of years
after it was first recorded.

Cluefest: thousands is much smaller than billions.

Who cares? It makes the point.



And actually, its shape has changed quite a bit. 50,000 years ago it
looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.

That still shows stars as moving pretty darned slow.




that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
caught in each other's gravity.
When did anyone say that's what happened?

I thought Brad was saying that,

Brad is a well-known troll and knows nothing about anything.

On 09/04/09 18:15, Androcles wrote:
"Mark wrote in message
...
On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
"Martin wrote in message
Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!

Sure...
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...Lightcurve.xls
This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.

More than that, you can change the parameters yourself.
It adds the speed of light to the speed of the source moving in
a Keplerian orbit

Using newtonian mechanics.

and out pops the light curves of Algol, delta-Cepheus,
V 1493 Aql and many others, all done by mathemagic.

All done by randomness. I've taken another look at your spreadsheet, and
all I can see is a bunch of inconsistent equations which have been
manipulated and adjusted till they give a shape approximating to the
light curve of a couple of eclipsing binaries. I could write a thousand
spreadsheets to generate the same shape, all using various dotty
aggregations of measurable phenomena. They're share one thing in common
- a failure to apply Occam's Razor and at least one bit of broken maths.
I'll leave it for you to work out where yours is. Clue: if the change in
luminosity were due to orbital mechanics, it would change smoothly and
by a much smaller amount. Your excessive use of Mod has blown you up.

But... you're claiming that the orbital motion of the star (about what?)
causes its light curve? Ok, it should be easy for you to prove - just
show that the photons coming from any one of these stars are moving at
the speed your model predicts.

Real data

You're claiming your spreadsheet is real data? ????

that can't be modelled by your only-one-speed-of-light-allowed
religion.

And yet, below your post you actually showed the explanations.... how
can there be no explanation, if there is one?

Just out of interest why do you think your explanation is more plausible
than the conventional one? Take Algol for a starting point.


Of course, they a just are bunch of stars, not worth looking at when
you have the shining light of the brilliant Einstein telling you what to
think.

I think for myself thanks.

Martin is a little out of date, is all.

Martin is a faithful follower of the gospel according to Rabbi Saint
Einstein

No, he's merely a little out of date.

You on the other hand are, as ford prefect would say of the
golgafrincham B-Arkers, a loony.

On 09/04/09 18:16, Androcles wrote:
"Mark wrote in message

If your message were genuinely automated, it'd be busy sending yourself
the same message....

*plonk*

The classic response. Rather than face reality, he hides away, denies it
exists, sticks his fingers in his ears and hums...