A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 9th 09, 02:19 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 9:59*am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Jul 6, 6:55 am, BradGuth wrote:

Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least
according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and
orbital mechanics.


snip usual GuthBall frothing

As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this,


GuthBall, no matter how many time you have recited your usual and
unintelligible gibberish, it remains just that: the rantings of a total
loon.


In that case, perhaps you and rabbi Saul should get a room.

It seems now even Newtonian physics and your own peer accepted science
is off-limits with you crazy kosher guys.

~ BG
  #12  
Old July 10th 09, 02:39 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 9:59*am, "Hagar" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Jul 6, 6:55 am, BradGuth wrote:

Sirius and our solar system are clearly inseparable, at least
according to the regular laws of physics, Newtonian gravity and
orbital mechanics.


snip usual GuthBall frothing

As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this,


GuthBall, no matter how many time you have recited your usual and
unintelligible gibberish, it remains just that: the rantings of a total
loon.


In that case, perhaps you and rabbi Saul (aka Art Deco) should get a
room.

It seems now even the most peer reviewed interpretations of Newtonian
physics and your own peer accepted science is suddenly off-limits with
you crazy kosher guys. Local planets, moons and satellites go by
Newtonian physics, but apparently stars and exoplanets by way of your
mindset don't (especially of those we're headed towards don't count).
~ BG
  #13  
Old July 11th 09, 06:07 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

As is, the 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force is
what represents a 4763:1 greater grip than our sun has on Sedna. Of
course you can always trust the mainstream obfuscation and perpetual
denial from our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the
math yourself, or perhaps simply use either one of the following:
Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force)
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

~ BG

  #14  
Old July 11th 09, 07:42 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote:
In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and 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 parrot media
has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly
substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a
relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite
possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy),
and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first
200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have
been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having
imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole
mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg).

First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than
having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic
molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 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 of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so
far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6,
while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of
1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller
galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have
been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the
remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly
diameter that 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 cosmic molecular mass of
1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual
barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/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
singular 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 *peer reviewed and
science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of
eye-candy plus other collaborative 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 our 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 the all-knowing expertise from our FAS, telling us whatever
they seem to know best or at least suspect is most likely, and where
exactly are those public funded supercomputer simulations. *Surely
these brown-nosed clowns, faith-based bigots and closed mindsets of
our Usenet/newsgroup proprietors that are continually enforcing their
mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do
by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to
constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good.


As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii
holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what
represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on
little Sedna. Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in
mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our
resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or
perhaps simply use either one of the following:
Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force)
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid)
of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N,
and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius.
That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal
radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back
towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so)

Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as
dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully
encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another
mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified?

In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar
fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of
repulsion?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #15  
Old July 13th 09, 02:40 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 11, 11:42*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote:



In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and 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 parrot media
has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly
substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a
relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite
possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy),
and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first
200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have
been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having
imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole
mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg).


First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than
having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic
molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 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 of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so
far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6,
while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of
1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller
galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have
been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the
remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly
diameter that 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 cosmic molecular mass of
1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual
barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/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
singular 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 *peer reviewed and
science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of
eye-candy plus other collaborative 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 our 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 the all-knowing expertise from our FAS, telling us whatever
they seem to know best or at least suspect is most likely, and where
exactly are those public funded supercomputer simulations. *Surely
these brown-nosed clowns, faith-based bigots and closed mindsets of
our Usenet/newsgroup proprietors that are continually enforcing their
mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do
by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to
constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good.


As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii
holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what
represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on
little Sedna. *Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in
mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our
resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or
perhaps simply use either one of the following:
*Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force)
*http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
*http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid)
of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N,
and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius.
That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal
radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back
towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so)

Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as
dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully
encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another
mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified?

In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar
fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of
repulsion?


I'm asking nicely; how can the Newtonian physics laws of gravity be
conditional?

How can those Newtonian laws and those of orbital mechanics which
apply for Sedna and the likes of 2005-VX3, and yet not apply for that
of Sirius and our solar system?

Do the electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #16  
Old July 13th 09, 09:23 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 11, 11:42*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote:



In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and 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 parrot media
has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly
substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a
relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite
possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy),
and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first
200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have
been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having
imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole
mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg).


First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than
having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic
molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 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 of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so
far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6,
while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of
1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller
galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have
been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the
remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly
diameter that 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 cosmic molecular mass of
1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual
barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/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
singular 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 *peer reviewed and
science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of
eye-candy plus other collaborative 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 our 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 the all-knowing expertise from our FAS, telling us whatever
they seem to know best or at least suspect is most likely, and where
exactly are those public funded supercomputer simulations. *Surely
these brown-nosed clowns, faith-based bigots and closed mindsets of
our Usenet/newsgroup proprietors that are continually enforcing their
mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do
by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to
constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good.


As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii
holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what
represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on
little Sedna. *Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in
mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our
resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or
perhaps simply use either one of the following:
*Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force)
*http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
*http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid)
of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N,
and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius.
That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal
radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back
towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so)

Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as
dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully
encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another
mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified?

In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar
fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of
repulsion?


I'm still asking nicely; how can the Newtonian physics laws of
gravity be conditional?

How can those Newtonian laws and otherwise those of orbital mechanics
which apply for Sedna and even the likes of 2005-VX3, and yet
according to mainstream naysayism do not apply for that of Sirius and
our solar system?

Do the electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much?

What's the barycenter between us and the Sirius star/solar system?

Why hasn’t the little Sirius C (.06 solar mass) been detected?

On this trajectory pass we’re on, exactly when and how close will our
passive solar system get to the Sirius star/solar system?

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


  #17  
Old July 15th 09, 04:18 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 11, 11:42*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 9, 5:46*am, BradGuth wrote:



In spite of all the usual naysayers, Sirius and 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 parrot media
has to say, we seem to have become closely associated with the truly
substantial Sirius star cluster, even though Sirius has only been a
relatively newish and extremely vibrant stellar evolution (quite
possibly contributed from our Milky Way encountering another galaxy),
and most likely especially terrestrial illuminating of the first
200~250 million years worth, and for all we know Sirius C may have
been the most massive and thus the first to burn itself out, or having
imploded itself into a spent star (possibly neutron or *black hole
mass of .06 (1.19e29 kg).


First off, it’s not that Sirius is all that extra special, other than
having evolved so recently and *nearby, whereas it took a cosmic
molecular cloud worth perhaps at the very least 1.25e5 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 of sufficient cosmology expertise might go so
far as to suggest a more than likely molecular cloud mass of 1.25e6,
while still others yet would prefer having a robust cloud worthy of
1.25e7 solar masses as having emerged from encountering a smaller
galaxy that merged with our Milky Way. *In any case, that must have
been quite an impressive stellar birthing process, especially if the
remains of this terrific cloud having been originally near 100 ly
diameter that 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 cosmic molecular mass of
1.25e61.25e7, and/or at least subsequently associated with the mutual
barycenter that's still primarily dominated by the Sirius star/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
singular 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 *peer reviewed and
science journal accepted observationology (deductive interpretation of
eye-candy plus other collaborative 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 our 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 the all-knowing expertise from our FAS, telling us whatever
they seem to know best or at least suspect is most likely, and where
exactly are those public funded supercomputer simulations. *Surely
these brown-nosed clowns, faith-based bigots and closed mindsets of
our Usenet/newsgroup proprietors that are continually enforcing their
mainstream status quo (much like my personal rabbi shadow tries to do
by trashing everyone in sight) are hopefully not speaking on behalf of
our FAS or any other professional group that attempting to
constructively contribute on behalf of the greater good.


As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii
holding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what
represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on
little Sedna. *Of course you can always maintain your devout trust in
mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from the likes of our
resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or
perhaps simply use either one of the following:
*Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force)
*http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
*http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid)
of 112 km diameter as perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.4e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.71e9 N,
and even it’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radius.
That’s representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of nearly 83e6:1 greater tidal
radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be headed back
towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating as any
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

Are these Newtonian laws of physics conditional? (I don't think so)

Other than external sources of gravity yet to be identified, such as
dark cosmic matter and black holes keeping us away from fully
encountering the Sirius star/solar system, is there yet another
mysterious repelling/antigravity force that hasn't been identified?

In order to avoid a full orbit of Sirius, would not the interstellar
fields of electrostatic and/or magnetic forces have to become that of
repulsion?


I'm still here and asking; how can those Newtonian physics laws of
gravity be conditional and thus not apply to interstellar attraction?

How can those Newtonian laws and otherwise orbital mechanics which
apply for Sedna and even the likes of 2005-VX3, and yet according to
mainstream naysayism do not apply for that of Sirius and our solar
system?

Do the electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much?

What's the barycenter situation between us and the Sirius star/solar
system?

Why hasn’t the little Sirius C (.06 solar mass) been detected?

On the trajectory path and pass we’re on, exactly when and how close
will our passive solar system get to the Sirius star/solar system?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #18  
Old July 15th 09, 06:33 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote:
Sirius and 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 the Sirius
star cluster, even though Sirius has 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 the Sirius star/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.

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


What would have happened within our solar system and the environment
of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of the same
molecular cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses, as what had just given birth
to those nearby Sirius stars and such having taken at least ten
millions to a hundred some odd million years in order to create?

~ BG
  #19  
Old July 16th 09, 01:11 AM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 15, 10:33*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote:



Sirius and 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 the Sirius
star cluster, even though Sirius has 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 the Sirius star/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.


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


What would have happened within our solar system and the environment
of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of the same
molecular cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses, as what had just given birth
to those nearby Sirius stars and such having taken at least ten
millions to a hundred some odd million years in order to create?


I'm still asking nicely; how can the Newtonian physics laws of
gravity be conditional? (remember that perpetual mainstream denial
and systematic obfuscation don’t count)

How can those Newtonian laws and otherwise those matters of orbital
mechanics which apply for the likes of our solar system holding onto
Sedna and even the likes of wussy little 2005-VX3, and yet according
to mainstream naysayism do not apply for that of nearby Sirius and our
somewhat wussy little solar system?

Do those electrons of stars or similar charged bodies repel that much?

What's the barycenter between us and the Sirius star/solar system?

Why hasn’t the little Sirius C (.06 solar mass) been observed?

On this stellar accelerating trajectory path, and closing at –7.6+ km/
s that we’re currently on and only increasing that velocity, exactly
when and how close will our passive solar system get to the vibrant
and 3.5 fold massive Sirius star/solar system?

In the past, what should have happened within our solar system and
specifically to the environment of Eden/Earth as we passed through any
remaining portion of that same molecular cloud of 1.25e61.25e7 solar
masses that had just previously given birth to those nearby Sirius
stars, and from such a stellar birthing process as having taken at
least ten million to a hundred some odd million years in order to
create?

What’s keeping stars that have become close enough, and even moving
towards one another, from simply following the natural progression of
Newtonian physics, by way of eventually combining or merging their
mass into becoming a truly large supernovae?

Electron Attraction and Repulsion
http://www.smeter.net/daily-facts/6/fact1.php
Last modified: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 00:44:57 GMT
“Gravity attracts two electrons towards each other, but their
identical negative charges cause an electrical repulsion force. If the
gravity force and the electrical force were equal in strength there
would be no net force of attraction or repulsion. However, it is well
known that electrons repel each other, so the electrical force is
stronger than the gravitational force, but how much stronger? The
force ratio is enormous. The electrical force is 4.17x1042 times
stronger than the gravitational force regardless of the distance
between two electrons. There is a strange thing about that ratio. If
the age of the universe is 8.34x1010 years, the age of the universe is
4.17x1042 times greater than the time required for an electromagnetic
wave to pass across a proton (10-24 seconds). So, is the gravitational
constant related to the age of the universe? Probably not, but it
might be.”

As is, the 1.417e17 N (1.445e16 kgf) worth of the Sirius tidal radii
holding/binding force or that of its Newtonian dynamic range is what
represents a 4763:1 greater gravitational grip than our sun has on
little Sedna. Not to mention 2005-VX3 that’s worth merely 1.709e9 N,
and even it’s not going away from our solar system tidal radius,
thereby representing a Sirius/XV3 ratio of having nearly 83e6:1
greater tidal radii hold on us. Of course you can always maintain
your devout trust in mainstream obfuscation and perpetual denials from
the likes of our resident newsgroup rabbi, or you can simply do the
math yourself, or perhaps use either one of the following:
Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius force)
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

Now we should consider the energy (E=MV2) of our 2.02e30 kg closing in
at the differential velocity of 7.6 km/s upon Sirius isn’t none too
shabby, offering 1.167e38 joules (1.167e38 N.m). This kind of makes
the 1.417e17N of gravitational force seem entirely insignificant, but
none the less a constant applied force that’s only increasing by that
same pesky inverse square law as we get closer. Obviously the
velocity of mass is dominating this stellar interaction between our
sun and the still massive and extremely nearby Sirius star system that
we’re headed towards, somewhat like we’re headed towards the Andromeda
galaxy, and together we’re all headed into the “Great Attractor”.

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


  #20  
Old July 16th 09, 11:33 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Jul 15, 10:33*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Jul 6, 6:55*am, BradGuth wrote:



Sirius and 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 the Sirius
star cluster, even though Sirius has 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 the Sirius star/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.


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


What would have happened within our solar system and the environment
of Eden/Earth as we passed through any remaining portion of the same
molecular cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses, as what had just given birth
to those nearby Sirius stars and such having taken at least ten
millions to a hundred some odd million years in order to create?


Why is it that the laws of physics, the best available science that's
peer replicated to death, and the subsequent technology that works
likes a charm on Earth or on behalf of anything our DARPA and NASA
wants to do or would fully support doing, doesn't function on behalf
of anything related to the Sirius star/solar system or the planet
Venus?

As of lately, even the Newtonian laws of gravity do not seem to apply,
except as to whatever our DARPA and NASA cares to invest our hard
earned public loot into.

Is it just me?

~ BG


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Brad Guth is...... OM History 0 December 27th 03 12:34 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.