Fate of the outer planets as the Sun enters red giant phase

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 1:19 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Oct 22, 11:48 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
************************************************** ********
MD:
Tsk, tsk. Brad, you are a fantasist and you changed my word
unbound
to
inbound. There simply isn't any way to deny the objective fact of
what
you
did. Go back in Google Groups and find the posting where I spelled
the
word
"inbound". Then post the link here.

I already did just that, of course only you as a Usenet/newsgroup

No you didn't.

insider could have edited/revised that context by now, so I'm not
even
going to bother, especially when you're so pathetically insecure
that
you can't even admit to a silly and perfectly understandable typo.
Good grief, how totally insecure and otherwise childish of yourself.

Here, I'll do it for you.

Once sent into cyberspace, you can't alter or edit what you say. Take
a
look at

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...04fd91a404d4?d...

about 3/4 of the way down.

I used cut and paste, nothing else. Go figure how the DARPA spooks
and moles of Usenet pulled that one off.

Actually you typed up a paraphrase and changed a crucial word.





The date of the final stages of Sirius B changing into a white
dwarf
remnant
is as good as astrophysicists can get it and I can't improve on
that
determination. Sirius is not and never has been bound to the Sun
in
any
kind of orbit. I don't know what you think you are reading into
some
of
my
statements but you are fantasizing again.

Is it because you don't believe in barycenters?

Of course I do, for binary stars or simple n-body systems, but not for
unbound pairs embedded (and moving) in larger fields of millions of
stars.

Or is it that you simply don't believe in gravity or tidal radius
issues?

How exactly do galaxies stay kind of together, if not for gravity,
barycenters, loads of mutual tidal radius issues and perhaps even a
little electrostatic force of attraction?

Being two stars in the same Galaxy does not make Sirius and the Sun a
binary
pair.

If you say so. I'd thought complex multi-star systems were kind of
the norm.

They are fairly rare, though they certainly exist. Binaries are
relatively
common as are single stars. But Sirius and the Sun were never bound in a
binary. They are separate systems and always have been.

Then why are we still headed towards Sirius at 7.5 km/s as of 8.6
years ago?

~ BG

Because stars that are not bound to each other have relative velocities that
preclude being bound. The average relative speed of stars in the region of
the Sun is around 15-20 km/sec and separations of 1-2 parsec.

Steps to sanity for Brad:

1. Calculate the potential energy of the Sun-Sirius "system". I gave the
formulae earlier.
2. Take into account the proper motion of Sirius and calculate the total
relative velocity. Then calculate the kinetic energy. Compare PE and KE.
3. Conclude that because KE+PE 0, the two stars are not bound to one
another in a binary orbit.

It's so simple a kid in high school can do it, Brad.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

On Oct 23, 9:42 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Oct 23, 1:19 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Oct 22, 11:48 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
************************************************** ********
MD:
Tsk, tsk. Brad, you are a fantasist and you changed my word
unbound
to
inbound. There simply isn't any way to deny the objective fact of
what
you
did. Go back in Google Groups and find the posting where I spelled
the
word
"inbound". Then post the link here.

I already did just that, of course only you as a Usenet/newsgroup

No you didn't.

insider could have edited/revised that context by now, so I'm not
even
going to bother, especially when you're so pathetically insecure
that
you can't even admit to a silly and perfectly understandable typo.
Good grief, how totally insecure and otherwise childish of yourself.

Here, I'll do it for you.

Once sent into cyberspace, you can't alter or edit what you say. Take
a
look at

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...04fd91a404d4?d...

about 3/4 of the way down.

I used cut and paste, nothing else. Go figure how the DARPA spooks
and moles of Usenet pulled that one off.

Actually you typed up a paraphrase and changed a crucial word.

The date of the final stages of Sirius B changing into a white
dwarf
remnant
is as good as astrophysicists can get it and I can't improve on
that
determination. Sirius is not and never has been bound to the Sun
in
any
kind of orbit. I don't know what you think you are reading into
some
of
my
statements but you are fantasizing again.

Is it because you don't believe in barycenters?

Of course I do, for binary stars or simple n-body systems, but not for
unbound pairs embedded (and moving) in larger fields of millions of
stars.

Or is it that you simply don't believe in gravity or tidal radius
issues?

How exactly do galaxies stay kind of together, if not for gravity,
barycenters, loads of mutual tidal radius issues and perhaps even a
little electrostatic force of attraction?

Being two stars in the same Galaxy does not make Sirius and the Sun a
binary
pair.

If you say so. I'd thought complex multi-star systems were kind of
the norm.

They are fairly rare, though they certainly exist. Binaries are
relatively
common as are single stars. But Sirius and the Sun were never bound in a
binary. They are separate systems and always have been.

Then why are we still headed towards Sirius at 7.5 km/s as of 8.6
years ago?

~ BG

Because stars that are not bound to each other have relative velocities that
preclude being bound. The average relative speed of stars in the region of
the Sun is around 15-20 km/sec and separations of 1-2 parsec.

Steps to sanity for Brad:

1. Calculate the potential energy of the Sun-Sirius "system". I gave the
formulae earlier.
2. Take into account the proper motion of Sirius and calculate the total
relative velocity. Then calculate the kinetic energy. Compare PE and KE.
3. Conclude that because KE+PE 0, the two stars are not bound to one
another in a binary orbit.

It's so simple a kid in high school can do it, Brad.

--
Mike Dworetsky

But why are we headed towards Sirius, especially if our cosmic
existence is supposedly unbound by way of velocity, except in this
case it seems we're headed back towards Sirius means at some future
point we're going to get closer, and not further apart.

Tell us exactly how close we're going to get, before once again
heading apart.

~ BG

On Oct 23, 9:42 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Oct 23, 1:19 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

....

On Oct 22, 11:48 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
************************************************** ********
MD:
Tsk, tsk. Brad, you are a fantasist and you changed my word
unbound
to
inbound. There simply isn't any way to deny the objective fact of
what
you
did. Go back in Google Groups and find the posting where I spelled
the
word
"inbound". Then post the link here.

I already did just that, of course only you as a Usenet/newsgroup

No you didn't.

insider could have edited/revised that context by now, so I'm not
even
going to bother, especially when you're so pathetically insecure
that
you can't even admit to a silly and perfectly understandable typo..
Good grief, how totally insecure and otherwise childish of yourself.

Here, I'll do it for you.

Once sent into cyberspace, you can't alter or edit what you say. Take
a
look at

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...04fd91a404d4?d...

about 3/4 of the way down.

I used cut and paste, nothing else. Go figure how the DARPA spooks
and moles of Usenet pulled that one off.

Actually you typed up a paraphrase and changed a crucial word.

The date of the final stages of Sirius B changing into a white
dwarf
remnant
is as good as astrophysicists can get it and I can't improve on
that
determination. Sirius is not and never has been bound to the Sun
in
any
kind of orbit. I don't know what you think you are reading into
some
of
my
statements but you are fantasizing again.

Is it because you don't believe in barycenters?

Of course I do, for binary stars or simple n-body systems, but not for
unbound pairs embedded (and moving) in larger fields of millions of
stars.

Or is it that you simply don't believe in gravity or tidal radius
issues?

How exactly do galaxies stay kind of together, if not for gravity,
barycenters, loads of mutual tidal radius issues and perhaps even a
little electrostatic force of attraction?

Being two stars in the same Galaxy does not make Sirius and the Sun a
binary
pair.

If you say so. I'd thought complex multi-star systems were kind of
the norm.

They are fairly rare, though they certainly exist. Binaries are
relatively
common as are single stars. But Sirius and the Sun were never bound in a
binary. They are separate systems and always have been.

Then why are we still headed towards Sirius at 7.5 km/s as of 8.6
years ago?

~ BG

Because stars that are not bound to each other have relative velocities that
preclude being bound. The average relative speed of stars in the region of
the Sun is around 15-20 km/sec and separations of 1-2 parsec.

Steps to sanity for Brad:

1. Calculate the potential energy of the Sun-Sirius "system". I gave the
formulae earlier.
2. Take into account the proper motion of Sirius and calculate the total
relative velocity. Then calculate the kinetic energy. Compare PE and KE..
3. Conclude that because KE+PE 0, the two stars are not bound to one
another in a binary orbit.

It's so simple a kid in high school can do it, Brad.

--
Mike Dworetsky

But why are we headed towards Sirius, especially if our cosmic
existence is supposedly unbound by way of velocity, except in this
case it seems we're headed back towards Sirius, means at some future
point we're going to get closer, and not further apart.

Tell us exactly how close we're going to get, before once again
heading apart.

Btw; why do you (not me) keep using “binary orbit” as any part of
this?

Do you not have faith in mutual barycenters?

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Oct 23, 9:42 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Oct 23, 1:19 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

On Oct 22, 11:48 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
************************************************** ********
MD:
Tsk, tsk. Brad, you are a fantasist and you changed my word
unbound
to
inbound. There simply isn't any way to deny the objective fact
of
what
you
did. Go back in Google Groups and find the posting where I
spelled
the
word
"inbound". Then post the link here.

I already did just that, of course only you as a Usenet/newsgroup

No you didn't.

insider could have edited/revised that context by now, so I'm not
even
going to bother, especially when you're so pathetically insecure
that
you can't even admit to a silly and perfectly understandable
typo.
Good grief, how totally insecure and otherwise childish of
yourself.

Here, I'll do it for you.

Once sent into cyberspace, you can't alter or edit what you say.
Take
a
look at

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt...04fd91a404d4?d...

about 3/4 of the way down.

I used cut and paste, nothing else. Go figure how the DARPA spooks
and moles of Usenet pulled that one off.

Actually you typed up a paraphrase and changed a crucial word.

The date of the final stages of Sirius B changing into a white
dwarf
remnant
is as good as astrophysicists can get it and I can't improve on
that
determination. Sirius is not and never has been bound to the
Sun
in
any
kind of orbit. I don't know what you think you are reading into
some
of
my
statements but you are fantasizing again.

Is it because you don't believe in barycenters?

Of course I do, for binary stars or simple n-body systems, but not
for
unbound pairs embedded (and moving) in larger fields of millions of
stars.

Or is it that you simply don't believe in gravity or tidal radius
issues?

How exactly do galaxies stay kind of together, if not for
gravity,
barycenters, loads of mutual tidal radius issues and perhaps even
a
little electrostatic force of attraction?

Being two stars in the same Galaxy does not make Sirius and the Sun
a
binary
pair.

If you say so. I'd thought complex multi-star systems were kind of
the norm.

They are fairly rare, though they certainly exist. Binaries are
relatively
common as are single stars. But Sirius and the Sun were never bound
in a
binary. They are separate systems and always have been.

Then why are we still headed towards Sirius at 7.5 km/s as of 8.6
years ago?

~ BG

Because stars that are not bound to each other have relative velocities
that
preclude being bound. The average relative speed of stars in the region
of
the Sun is around 15-20 km/sec and separations of 1-2 parsec.

Steps to sanity for Brad:

1. Calculate the potential energy of the Sun-Sirius "system". I gave the
formulae earlier.
2. Take into account the proper motion of Sirius and calculate the total
relative velocity. Then calculate the kinetic energy. Compare PE and
KE.
3. Conclude that because KE+PE 0, the two stars are not bound to one
another in a binary orbit.

It's so simple a kid in high school can do it, Brad.

--
Mike Dworetsky

But why are we headed towards Sirius, especially if our cosmic
existence is supposedly unbound by way of velocity, except in this
case it seems we're headed back towards Sirius means at some future
point we're going to get closer, and not further apart.

Tell us exactly how close we're going to get, before once again
heading apart.

~ BG

The random motions of stars in the vicinity of the Sun have scatters of +/-
several km/s. However, many stars seem to be moving together through space
even if they are not bound into a cluster. In general, half the stars in
the sky will have negative radial velocities of 5-20 km/sec or more, and the
rest positive RV of similar order of magnitude.

Astronomers use the space motion calculated from proper motion, radial
velocity, and distance, usually expressed relative to the Local Standard of
Rest. This is a very standard and commonly used means of studying star
motions in galactic astronomy.

The Sun's space motion in these terms is (U,V,W) = (13.4, 11.1, 6.9) km/s.
(U,V,W) are orthogonal space velocity components with U and V in the plane
and W perpendicular.

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

Sirius's space velocity is (Gliese 3rd catalogue, 1991) (+15, +1, -11). If
you take the sum of squared differences and the square root of the sum, you
get a relative space velocity of 20.7 km/sec.

This means that the radial velocity of "approach" is only a small part of
the total relative velocity, and the rest of it involves the two stars
moving away from one another.

Sirius is kinematically part of the moving group or star stream called the
Sirius Group or Stream. The Sun is not part of that stream, and never has
been. The stars of the Sirius Stream are of ages of around 400-700 MY,
while the Sun has an age of 4,500MY.

Hence they are totally unrelated.

All the above are pretty good reasons to say that Sirius and the Sun are not
now, nor have they ever been, part of a binary system or in any way bound to
one another. They are not even related by past history.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)