|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System
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” |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System
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” |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System
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” |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Astronomers Find Double-Planet, Double-Star System
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Astronomers find tiny planet orbiting tiny star (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 1 | June 4th 08 03:41 AM |
Astronomers find tiny planet orbiting tiny star (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee[_1_] | News | 0 | June 3rd 08 11:16 PM |
HD033203 - a colorful after-work double spring/winter double - Apr | canopus56 | Amateur Astronomy | 3 | April 3rd 06 10:51 PM |
ASTRONOMERS FIND SMALLEST EXTRASOLAR PLANET YET AROUND NORMAL STAR(STScI-PR06-06) | INBOX ASTRONOMY: NEWS ALERT | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | January 25th 06 07:53 PM |
ASTRONOMERS FIND SMALLEST EXTRASOLAR PLANET YET AROUND NORMAL STAR(STScI-PR06-06) | INBOX ASTRONOMY: NEWS ALERT | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 25th 06 06:05 PM |