Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System

Dear Brad Guth:

On Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:05:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 4, 8:20*am, dlzc wrote:

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:07:01 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

However, if the encounter with a red dwarf
included its lithobraking via Saturn or Jupiter,
as such could allow for the capture.

Nope. *"Conservation of angular momentum".
*Were the red dwarf to come close enough to
either of those two gas giants, it would
consume them, and the Sun would have one
less gas giant as it went back out-system.


Your purely subjective based naysay is noted.

It is not subjective. Your assertion that a .1 solar mass or larger body can stay in-system by displacing only a .001 solar mass object, is at best "subjective".

According to those of your kind, it's impossible
for our satellites to orbit anything they
encounter, such as our moon or mars.

So our Satellites are 100 times more massive than the Moon?

Computer simulators of captures tend to
disagree with your automatic naysay. Of
course mainstream obfuscate in order to
exclude enough evidence, and you're good
to go.

Please provide one peer reviewed paper that permits what you describe. You are blowing smoke to cover your intention ignorance, and you know it.

David A. Smith

On Sep 9, 6:30*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth:









On Sunday, September 9, 2012 5:05:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
On Sep 4, 8:20*am, dlzc wrote:

On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 7:07:01 AM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

However, if the encounter with a red dwarf
included its lithobraking via Saturn or Jupiter,
as such could allow for the capture.

Nope. *"Conservation of angular momentum".
*Were the red dwarf to come close enough to
either of those two gas giants, it would
consume them, and the Sun would have one
less gas giant as it went back out-system.

Your purely subjective based naysay is noted.

It is not subjective. *Your assertion that a .1 solar mass or larger body can stay in-system by displacing only a .001 solar mass object, is at best "subjective".

According to those of your kind, it's impossible
for our satellites to orbit anything they
encounter, such as our moon or mars.

So our Satellites are 100 times more massive than the Moon?

Computer simulators of captures tend to
disagree with your automatic naysay. *Of
course mainstream obfuscate in order to
exclude enough evidence, and you're good
to go.

Please provide one peer reviewed paper that permits what you describe. *You are blowing smoke to cover your intention ignorance, and you know it..

David A. Smith

Their refusal to run any publicly accessible computer simulations on
any of JPL’s or similar public funded supercomputer, is proof positive
of just how deathly afraid our mainstream status-quo that you worship,
actually is.

The vast majority of moons are those captured and not otherwise
created on the fly (so to speak), and I’m certainly not the first nor
will I be the last to interpret such.

Lithobraking is not so unlikely, as well as any substantial loss of
ice can’t be excluded as a method of items parking into an existing
solar system or captured around some planet. This is not to say that
the odds wouldn’t be worth a million to one against any such
successful captures, especially when so many variables have to be just
right.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Sep 4, 5:52*pm, Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 02/09/2012 1:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

Could an existing solar system like ours capture a red dwarf without
causing too much trauma for the existing planets? (seem rather
unlikely, as even capturing another Jupiter mass would likely spell
the demise of most all planets of our inner solar system, although
outer planets [those past Saturn] may do just fine unless hit by
debris from inner planet collisions)

No, capturing something like a star would require the ejection of a
planet, perhaps several planets. Namely the more massive gas planets.

* * * * Yousuf Khan

Yes indeed, and what's wrong with that?

How many solar systems have a few too many Jupiter+ sized planets to
spare?

If our puny little satellites can be captured with aerobraking or
minimal retro-thrust, then why not a whole lot bigger stuff like our
moon taking a glancing blow or two off of Earth, and perhaps dropping
off a thousand teratonnes of ice before the capture process is
completed.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Dear Brad Guth:

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:26:28 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
....
Their refusal to run any publicly accessible
computer simulations on any of JPL’s or similar
public funded supercomputer, is proof positive
of just how deathly afraid our mainstream
status-quo that you worship, actually is.

It is your fantasy, not what you think is my religion. Even Newton is laughing at your naivte, from his grave.

....
Lithobraking is not so unlikely, as well as any
substantial loss of ice can’t be excluded as a
method of items parking into an existing solar
system or captured around some planet. This is
not to say that the odds wouldn’t be worth a
million to one against any such successful
captures, especially when so many variables have
to be just right.

Momentum still has to be conserved.

David A. Smith

On Sep 11, 2:24*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth:

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:26:28 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

Their refusal to run any publicly accessible
computer simulations on any of JPL’s or similar
public funded supercomputer, is proof positive
of just how deathly afraid our mainstream
status-quo that you worship, actually is.

It is your fantasy, not what you think is my religion. *Even Newton is laughing at your naivte, from his grave.

...

Lithobraking is not so unlikely, as well as any
substantial loss of ice can’t be excluded as a
method of items parking into an existing solar
system or captured around some planet. *This is
not to say that the odds wouldn’t be worth a
million to one against any such successful
captures, especially when so many variables have
to be just right.

Momentum still has to be conserved.

David A. Smith

And your mainstream failsafe approved claim is always that such
“momentum still has to be conserved”, is not reverse engineer-able in
order to simulate captures?

It seems that your steadfast naysay mindset lacks objective proof of
such captures being impossible.

Can you provide a link to those viewer interactive computer
simulations of 3+ bodies that’ll help prove your side of this
argument.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

Dear Brad Guth:

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:51:34 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:
....
And your mainstream failsafe approved claim
is always that such “momentum still has to be
conserved”, is not reverse engineer-able in
order to simulate captures?

Not of sol-massed bodies in our solar system. Because the momentum is too high.

It seems that your steadfast naysay mindset
lacks objective proof of such captures being
impossible.

Your seeming is colored by your intent, tantamount to a religious belief.

Can you provide a link to those viewer
interactive computer simulations of 3+ bodies
that’ll help prove your side of this argument.

Its not an argument. I try not to argue with fence posts. What I have seen, requires supercomputers.

David A. Smith

On Sep 12, 7:27*am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Brad Guth:

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 5:51:34 PM UTC-7, Brad Guth wrote:

...

And your mainstream failsafe approved claim
is always that such “momentum still has to be
conserved”, is not reverse engineer-able in
order to simulate captures?

Not of sol-massed bodies in our solar system. *Because the momentum is too high.
Indeed, with Sirius headed our way at 7.6 km/sec, plus other motion
related momentum issues means that our solar system would have to be
perturbed and/or possibly captured by Sirius, and not the other way
around.


It seems that your steadfast naysay mindset
lacks objective proof of such captures being
impossible.

Your seeming is colored by your intent, tantamount to a religious belief.

Can you provide a link to those viewer
interactive computer simulations of 3+ bodies
that’ll help prove your side of this argument.

Its not an argument. *I try not to argue with fence posts. *What I have seen, requires supercomputers.

David A. Smith

There are dozens of public-funded supercomputers (including at least a
couple good ones at JPL), mostly doing little if anything important
out of any given day.