A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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
  #1  
Old July 6th 09, 02:55 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

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”
Ads
  #2  
Old July 6th 09, 03:20 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”


Sirius and us(our solar system) are very much indeed inseparable, at
least according to the regular laws of physics pertaining to the
mainstream accepted laws of Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics
that seems more than sufficient, especially if little Sedna can be
turned around at a tidal radii of 1.459e14 m that’s worth merely
2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at 1.417e17 N (20 thousand fold stronger)
and we’ve been gaining on the 3.5 solar mass of Sirius by 7.6 km/sec,
plus most likely accelerating towards our next close encounter.

It’s pretty much all nothing but a mainstream infowar, a tactical
disinformation gauntlet of carefully orchestrated lies, deceptions and
systematic obfuscation is what it’s all about. When I’ve merely
expected of others to share information and to otherwise
constructively ponder and contribute to this topic and many similar
ones before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder, and
otherwise mostly negativity and banishment from most, as well as from
a certain racist and bigotry spouting rabbi none the less. However,
the laws of physics are seldom if ever politically correct or
otherwise faith-based, and as such they simply do not lie, and even
the best available science doesn’t support many of those established
mainstream notions of excluding anything and everything that rocks a
given faith-based boat..

Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius)
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

The cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius, as being worth at
least 1.25e6 solar masses, while at a center to center distance of 100
ly and using our solar system mass of 2.05e30 kg for that same era, we
get the following results for 100 ly (9.46053e17 m), 50 ly (4.7303e17
m) and 10 ly (9.46053e16 m).
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 100 ly = 3.819e20 Newtons
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 50 ly = 1.528e21 N
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 10 ly = 3.819e22 N

current (sun ~ earth) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 5.974e24 kg at 1.496e11 m = 3.541e22 N

current (sun ~ mars) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 6.418e23 kg at 2.2794e11 m = 1.639e21 N

current (sun ~ pluto) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 1.305e22 kg at 5.906e12 m = 4.964e16 N

current (solar system) ~ Sedna/average gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N

current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Being that a molecular cloud of at least 1.25e6 solar masses is going
to have a diameter of nearly 100 light years, as such I might suggest
that we use the 50 ly parameter for the adjusted distance from the
core density of such a molecular cloud, as for mutually binding us at
the weak gravity force of 1.528e21 N. Of course by doubling that
distance cuts this tidal binding force of radial gravitational
attraction down to a forth, whereas even at 500 ly it’s still worth
1.528e19 N, and at the 2.5e37 solar masses brings that 500 ly distance
right back up to being worth 1.528e20 N.

The cosmic creation of the Sirius star/solar system was no small
matter of any wussy little molecular cloud. This was an extremely
large cloud and subsequent stellar birthing event of relatively recent
times (250~300 MBP), and as such it would have been entirely visible
to the naked human eyes of that era (not that any intelligent human
via Darwin or intelligent design even existed at that time, although
Ed Conrad’s “Man of Coal” seems to be of that era), and as of most
recently transforming the red supergiant phase of Sirius B into a
white dwarf required a helium flashover (slow nova) about as close as
you can safely get, if not a little too close.

By way of reading from what others claiming to know more than most
anyone else (must be Einstein clones), it seems they’d have no
problems with suggesting the 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of having
been worth 1.25e7 solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar
system, and if still using 2.05e30 kg mass for that of our solar
system of that same era results in yet another 10 fold increased force
of attraction for that same 50 ly distance, representing 1.528e22 N
(nearly half of the sun~earth attraction), and 99.9999% of this 1e6:1
molecular cloud that’s oddly nowhere to be found, by rights should
have greatly affected our solar system.

Try to remember that this wasn’t a one brief time kind of a cosmic
drive-by shooting, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before ever having cranked out those
impressive Sirius stars, and for at least another million some odd
years of having blown everything else (99.999% of that molecular
cloud) far away. Once again, how can this kind of nearby cosmic event
and of such horrific original mass not have affected our solar system?

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #3  
Old July 6th 09, 05:53 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”


In order to put this tidal radius grip or Newtonian binding force into
proper context, it’s always good to draw upon whatever we objectively
know to be the case.

TNOs like Sedna, multiple thousands of SDOs and even a few of the
larger OCOs (Ort Cloud Objects) are no longer hard to find within the
radii of our Oort cloud that’s reaching way the hell out there at the
tidal radii of 3e16 meters and isn’t exactly going anywhere either,
all because of the weak binding force of gravity (“the Sun's orb of
physical, gravitational, or dynamical influence”).
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/tnoslist.html

Considering that we're still managing to hold onto Sedna;
current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

Whereas Sirius has apparently been holding onto us;
current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Now try to imagine whatever else the Sirius star/solar system of 3.5
solar masses is quite capable of its gravitational force holding onto,
not to mention as of prior to Sirius B becoming a white dwarf, and of
not too long before then of whatever the original molecular cloud of
1.25e7 solar masses has to offer (even at 500 ly it’s a worthy pull
or attractive force of 1.528e20 N).

As is, that 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force
represents a 4763:1 greater grip than we have on Sedna. Of course you
can always trust the mainstream obfuscation from our resident
newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps
simply use 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 and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.404e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.709e9
N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system 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 an
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

In other words, we unavoidably became a Newtonian orbiting part of
that same Sirius molecular cloud, and having remained associated with
the Sirius star/solar system ever since. The 99.999% remains of that
original molecular cloud which gave birth to Sirius is however nowhere
in sight, which is rather odd in that our observing instruments having
imaged the remains of similar or far less robust clouds at millions of
light years away, suggesting that the Sirius B helium flashover may
have actually been more like a sustained nova or possibly that of a
supernovae which directly affected our terrestrial environment, as
having triggered our most recent genetic mutations.

As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this,
because the laws of physics and the Newtonian binding force of gravity
are entirely in charge of this one. Only a religious skewed faith
that systematically excludes such matters of fact can manage to keep a
straight face, as they publicly obfuscate and otherwise remain in such
perpetual denial, somewhat like a Pope in denial of what their faith
once did to those nice Cathars. (how is it that mainstream religion
and their devout minions are never responsible for anything bad
happening?)

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #4  
Old July 6th 09, 05:59 PM posted to alt.astronomy,sci.space.policy,alt.journalism,alt.news-media,uk.sci.astronomy
Hagar[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,309
Default Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth


"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.



  #5  
Old July 6th 09, 06:29 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, 9:53*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”


In order to put this tidal radius grip or Newtonian binding force into
proper context, it’s always good to draw upon whatever we objectively
know to be the case.

TNOs like Sedna, multiple thousands of SDOs and even a few of the
larger OCOs (Ort Cloud Objects) are no longer hard to find within the
radii of our Oort cloud that’s reaching way the hell out there at the
tidal radii of 3e16 meters and isn’t exactly going anywhere either,
all because of the weak binding force of gravity (“the Sun's orb of
physical, gravitational, or dynamical influence”).
*http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/tnoslist.html

Considering that we're still managing to hold onto Sedna;
*current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
*2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

Whereas Sirius has apparently been holding onto us;
*current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
*2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Now try to imagine whatever else the Sirius star/solar system of 3.5
solar masses is quite capable of its gravitational force holding onto,
not to mention as of prior to Sirius B becoming a white dwarf, and of
not too long before then of whatever the original molecular cloud of
1.25e7 solar masses has to offer (even at 500 ly it’s a worthy pull
or attractive force of 1.528e20 N).

As is, that 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force
represents a 4763:1 greater grip than we have on Sedna. Of course you
can always trust the mainstream obfuscation from our resident
newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps
simply use 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 and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.404e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.709e9
N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system 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 an
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

In other words, we unavoidably became a Newtonian orbiting part of
that same Sirius molecular cloud, and having remained associated with
the Sirius star/solar system ever since. The 99.999% remains of that
original molecular cloud which gave birth to Sirius is however nowhere
in sight, which is rather odd in that our observing instruments having
imaged the remains of similar or far less robust clouds at millions of
light years away, suggesting that the Sirius B helium flashover may
have actually been more like a sustained nova or possibly that of a
supernovae which directly affected our terrestrial environment, as
having triggered our most recent genetic mutations.

As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this,
because the laws of physics and the Newtonian binding force of gravity
are entirely in charge of this one. *Only a religious skewed faith
that systematically excludes such matters of fact can manage to keep a
straight face, as they publicly obfuscate and otherwise remain in such
perpetual denial, somewhat like a Pope in denial of what their faith
once did to those nice Cathars. (how is it that mainstream religion
and their devout minions are never responsible for anything bad
happening?)

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


The Sirius star/solar system as having recently evolved from scratch,
as of supposedly 200300 million years ago, and then only most
recently its Sirius B having gone soft/slow nova as it converted
itself from the original 8.5 solar mass into a red supergiant worth
perhaps as much as 5.7 ( 5.3) solar masses, as having an impressive
1000 fold radii, finally got itself down to the helium flashover phase
of becoming a white dwarf within perhaps as recently as a few million
years ago. In other words, having been close enough as to creating a
living hell on Earth with a 2nd sun until after the red supergiant and
final helium flashover demise of becoming the nearly invisible white
dwarf. The original Sirius B luminosity was likely worth 10,000 times
brighter than our sun, and perhaps the combined luminosity of Sirius
ABC was likely worth 20,000 times brighter than our sun. However,
since so much of its spectrum was UV would mean that the energy
received from the Sirius star/solar system was actually worth
considerably greater to that of our mostly wet and growing environment
of that era.

The original location of Sirius and especially that of its terrific
molecular cloud of at least 1.25e6 solar masses (1.25e7) is still not
known (as though it materialized out of nowhere), nor has whatever
previous proper motions of either us or the remainder of that
molecular cloud been plotted or ever so much as virtually identified
via supercomputer simulations. Perhaps we have lost any track of such
remainders of that molecular cloud because of the horrific Sirius B
helium flashover having so extensively blown it all away.

Perhaps the public funded mainstream mindset of astrophysics and
related science simply doesn’t want us to know exactly whatever such a
nearby star/solar system as Sirius could have come from or having done
to us.

~ BG
  #6  
Old July 6th 09, 09:19 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, 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”


This isn’t even hocus-pocus rocket science, instead it’s just plain
old Newtonian physics that a dysfunctional 5th grader should
understand.

As is, the 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force
represents a 4763:1 greater grip than we have on Sedna. Of course you
can always trust the mainstream obfuscation from our resident
newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps
simply use 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 and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.404e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.709e9
N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system 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 an
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

The Sirius star/solar system as having recently evolved from scratch
as of supposedly 200300 million years ago, and then only most
recently its Sirius B having gone soft/slow nova as it converted
itself from the original 8.5 solar mass into a red supergiant worth
perhaps as much as 5.7 ( 5.3) solar masses, as having an impressive
1000 fold radii, finally got itself down to the helium flashover phase
of becoming a white dwarf within perhaps as recently as a few million
years ago. In other words, having been close enough as to creating a
living hell on Earth with a second sun until after the red supergiant
and final helium flashover demise of becoming the nearly invisible
white dwarf. The original Sirius B luminosity was likely worth 10,000
times brighter than our sun, and perhaps the combined luminosity of
Sirius ABC was likely worth 20,000 times brighter than our sun.
However, since so much of its spectrum was UV would mean that the
energy received from the Sirius star/solar system was actually worth
something considerably greater to that of our mostly wet and growing
environment of that era.

The original location of Sirius and especially that of its terrific
molecular cloud of at least 1.25e6 solar masses (1.25e51.25e7) is
still not objectively known (almost as though it materialized out of
nowhere), nor has whatever previous proper motions of either us or the
remainder of that molecular cloud been plotted or ever so much as
virtually identified via supercomputer simulations. We have obviously
lost any track of such remainders of that terrific molecular cloud
because of the Sirius B helium flashover having so extensively blown
it all away, and somehow supposedly not having affected us.

Perhaps the public funded mainstream mindset of astrophysics and
related science simply doesn’t want us to know exactly whatever such a
nearby star/solar system as Sirius could have come from, or having
done to us.

It takes a fairly substantial ratio of mostly hydrogen and some helium
consumption, plus a staggering CME loss of roughly causing a third of
its original stellar mass to go away, before a star becomes a worthy
full blown red giant or supergiant, thereby making the red supergiant
of Betelgeuse originally worth an impressive 30+ solar masses.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegrea...t_to_blow.html
Yes indeed, perhaps Betelgeuse should blow our socks off with one
hell of a nova or possibly supernovae as it becomes a fairly
substantial white dwarf or possibly turns itself into a neutron star,
and rather soon if there's an ongoing shrinkage of 1%/year for the
past 15 years (actually its helium flashover into becoming a white
dwarf or that neutron star has already taken place as of more than 550
years ago).

Here’s my further revised/edited version of stellar timelines that’ll
offer some alternative interpretation as to the recent birth and rapid
evolution of the Sirius star/solar system, and of this process most
likely having impacted our relatively nearby and passive solar system.

Our sun that supposedly took 100 million years in order to assemble
itself, consumes or burns its way through 4.28e9 kg/sec of mostly
hydrogen (or rather its more like burning through plus otherwise
having been CME tossing away 3e12 kg/sec, and perhaps even 4e12 kg/
sec if it were taking less than 9 billion years of its stellar
evolution to become a white dwarf). Supposedly within another 4.5
billion years our sun will have become noticeably expanding into a red
giant, and otherwise by at most 7.5 billion from now it should have
become a full blown red giant of at least 250 radii before the same
kind of measurable shrinkage and helium flashover phase into becoming
a white dwarf of perhaps not larger than Mars.

On the other hand, the original Sirius B of 8.5 solar masses had an
extremely short timeline up until reaching its most recent white dwarf
phase, as having obtained this status at roughly 500 times faster
stellar evolution than our sun reaching it’s white dwarf phase within
roughly 12e9 years (in other words, at merely 4.28e9 kg/sec our sun is
almost never going to die off unless something extremely large smacks
into it). On the other nearby stellar hand, Sirius B may have evolved
itself within as little as 200 million years, before having become the
white dwarf as of something less than 64 million years ago. However,
Sirius C could have also played an important roll at the same time or
before Sirius B evolved into the white dwarf. Perhaps the last thing
anyone within mainstream science wants any of us to have is that
TRACEe3 taking a much higher resolved look-see.

Sirius B had to burn through its fuel and otherwise toss mass away at
4e16 kg/sec, an average mass reduction rate of 4e15 kg/sec.

In other words, having to consume roughly 8+ times as much mass in as
little as 1/60th the time is what has to represent an extremely
vibrant neighbor (as a nearly exploding or slow nova kind of highly
terrestrial illuminating star), especially along with the original of
Sirius A at perhaps 3+ solar mass and Sirius C at whatever it started
out as perhaps worth 1 solar mass, all together representing one heck
of a great deal of stellar mass consuming and CMEs tossing sufficient
stellar volumes of mostly hydrogen, helium plus a few other plasma
elements as considerable mass leaving that vibrant star system, that
wasn’t any too far away from us.

Now that’s a seriously hot kind of active star system that’s sharing
loads of substantial hard-X-rays and gamma, taking place at perhaps
less than 10 light years from us, while the red supergiant phase and
its helium flashover (aka slow nova) into becoming the little white
dwarf happening even closer to us, and perhaps closer yet if there’s
any barycenter orbital considerations due to the original molecular
cloud of 1.2e6 or greater solar masses that obviously had to exist as
of 250~350 million years ago.

Our Earth and moon are also in the process of each losing mass, and at
the very least we are losing a combined 1e3 kg/sec in addition to the
3e12 kg/sec that our sun is losing. Given the persistent 350~450 km/s
of solar wind that’s gently pushing upon us (not to mention the added
force of halo CMEs), is suggesting it’s most likely this gradual
ongoing loss of such mass and its worth of gravity is what’s causing
the majority of our orbital recession (under 15 cm/year) away from the
sun. This could actually become a good thing, especially if we could
somehow manage to artificially cause Earth and our moon combined to
lose 1e4 kg/sec, while our sun keeps getting more into the IR
spectrum that’ll eventually become an inflated red giant of 250 times
radii, along with fluctuations and the increased loss of mass reaching
its highly charged plasma out nearly to the Mars radii, means that
Earth needs to get as far away form our sun as possible, and the
sooner the better. By then, we’d actually be a whole lot better off
as a moon of Saturn or Jupiter.

Nothing all that much to worry about: (as long as our fading
geomagnetic force doesn’t entirely fail us)
http://spaceweather.gmu.edu/index_files/cme.jpg
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/lasco-c2-cme.jpg
http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-cont...007/04/cme.jpg
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/...ombo1_prev.jpg
http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/insights/vol13/tele.htm

Btw; Sirius A has most likely gone through nearly 30% of it’s
original mass, and is about to become an impressive red supergiant of
its very own once exceeding a mass reduction of 33% via consumption
and CME losses, and of especially accelerated stellar evolution with a
nearby Sirius B sucking the hydrogen life out of Sirius A, as such
isn’t exactly retarding this process. Fortunately, Sirius A is not
going to become nearly as red supergiant as Sirius B, however the
helium flashover phase (at a forth the Sirius B mass) may happen a
whole lot closer to us, as we’re being pulled along our elliptical
Newtonian trek towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and accelerating.

Of course, within the next few thousand years there’ll also be
considerably less terrestrial magnetosphere and otherwise insufficient
energy resources for Eden/Earth to sustain much other than robust
bugs, microbes and spores of whatever we’d once had been. That
progression is actually a very insignificant cosmic amount of time,
especially considering that we’re also eventually headed into the
Great Attractor plus way before then nailed by the Andromeda galaxy,
so not to worry about such matters is best, even though advancing
technology could help salvage our otherwise certain demise. Too bad
the previous million years of terrestrial human life had been so
utterly wasted, and otherwise perhaps we’ll have better luck next time
unless some faith-based cults and their cabals have other intentions.

~ BG
  #7  
Old July 9th 09, 01:46 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

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.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #8  
Old July 9th 09, 01:55 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.


Sirius and us(our solar system) are very much indeed inseparable, at
least according to those regular laws of physics pertaining to the
mainstream accepted notions of Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics
that seems more than sufficient for everything else we’re told to
accept, and especially if little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal
radii of 1.459e14 m that’s worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at
8.6 light years and worth 1.417e17 N (20 thousand fold stronger), and
to think that we’ve been gaining on this 3.5 solar mass of Sirius by
7.6 km/sec, plus most likely and unavoidably accelerating towards our
next close encounter.

However, it’s pretty much all nothing but another mainstream infowar,
of media damage-control by way of a mainstream tactical disinformation
gauntlet of carefully orchestrated lies, deceptions and systematic
obfuscation is what it’s apparently all about. When I’ve merely
expected of others to share information and to otherwise
constructively ponder and contribute to this topic and many similar
ones before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder, and
otherwise mostly negativity and banishment, as well as from a certain
racist and kosher bigotry spouting potty-mouth rabbi none the less.
However, the laws of physics are seldom if ever politically correct or
otherwise faith-based, and as such they simply do not lie, and even
the best available science doesn’t support many of those established
mainstream notions of excluding anything and everything that rocks a
given faith-based boat.

Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius)
http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

The cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius, as being worth at
least 1.25e6 solar masses, while at a center to center distance of 100
ly and using our solar system mass of 2.05e30 kg for that same era, we
get the following results for 100 ly (9.46053e17 m), 50 ly (4.7303e17
m) and 10 ly (9.46053e16 m).
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 100 ly = 3.819e20 Newtons
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 50 ly = 1.528e21 N
2.05e30 kg and 2.5e36 kg at 10 ly = 3.819e22 N

current (sun ~ earth) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 5.974e24 kg at 1.496e11 m = 3.541e22 N

current (sun ~ mars) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 6.418e23 kg at 2.2794e11 m = 1.639e21 N

current (sun ~ pluto) gravitational force of attraction:
1.989e30 and 1.305e22 kg at 5.906e12 m = 4.964e16 N

current (solar system) ~ Sedna/average gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N

current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Being that a molecular cloud of at least 1.25e6 solar masses is going
to have a diameter of nearly 100 light years, as such I might suggest
that we use the 50 ly parameter for the adjusted distance from the
core density of such a molecular cloud, as for mutually binding us at
the weak gravity force of 1.528e21 N. Of course by doubling that
distance cuts this tidal binding force of radial gravitational
attraction down to a forth, whereas even at 500 ly it’s still worth
1.528e19 N, and at the 2.5e37 solar masses brings that 500 ly distance
right back up to being worth 1.528e20 N.

The cosmic creation of the Sirius star/solar system was no small
matter of any wussy little molecular cloud. This was an extremely
large cloud and subsequent stellar birthing event of relatively recent
times (250~300 MBP), and as such it would have been entirely visible
to the naked human eyes of that era (not that any intelligent human
via Darwin or intelligent design even existed at that time, although
Ed Conrad’s “Man of Coal” seems to be of that era), and as of most
recently transforming the red supergiant phase of Sirius B into a
white dwarf required a helium flashover (slow nova) about as close as
you can safely get, if not a little too close.

By way of reading from what others claiming to know more than most
anyone else (must be Einstein clones), it seems they’d have no
problems with suggesting the 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of having
been worth 1.25e7 solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar
system, and if still using 2.05e30 kg mass for that of our solar
system of that same era results in yet another 10 fold increased force
of attraction for that same 50 ly distance, representing 1.528e22 N
(nearly half of the sun~earth attraction), and 99.9999% of this 1e6:1
molecular cloud that’s oddly nowhere to be found, by rights should
have greatly affected our solar system.

Try to remember that this wasn’t a one brief time kind of a cosmic
drive-by shooting, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before that massive molecular cloud ever
having cranked out those impressive Sirius stars, and for at least
another million some odd years of having blown everything else
(99.999% of that molecular cloud) far away. Once again, how can this
kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific original mass not
have affected our solar system?

This one shouldn’t be so hard to answer, but then our resident wizards
seem unable, and/or unwilling to share and share alike without
involving a great deal of bloodshed.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
  #9  
Old July 9th 09, 02:06 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, 5:55*am, BradGuth wrote:
Sirius and us(our solar system) are very much indeed inseparable, at
least according to those regular laws of physics pertaining to the
mainstream accepted notions of Newtonian gravity and orbital mechanics
that seems more than sufficient for everything else we’re told to
accept, and especially if little Sedna can be turned around at a tidal
radii of 1.459e14 m that’s worth merely 2.975e13 N, whereas Sirius at
8.6 light years and worth 1.417e17 N (20 thousand fold stronger), and
to think that we’ve been gaining on this 3.5 solar mass of Sirius by
7.6 km/sec, plus most likely and unavoidably accelerating towards our
next close encounter.

However, it’s pretty much all nothing but another mainstream infowar,
of media damage-control by way of a mainstream tactical disinformation
gauntlet of carefully orchestrated lies, deceptions and systematic
obfuscation is what it’s apparently all about. *When I’ve merely
expected of others to share information and to otherwise
constructively ponder and contribute to this topic and many similar
ones before, all we ever got at best was a stone cold shoulder, and
otherwise mostly negativity and banishment, as well as from a certain
racist and kosher bigotry spouting potty-mouth rabbi none the less.
However, the laws of physics are seldom if ever politically correct or
otherwise faith-based, and as such they simply do not lie, and even
the best available science doesn’t support many of those established
mainstream notions of excluding anything and everything that rocks a
given faith-based boat.

Gravity Force of Attraction (orbital tidal radius)
*http://www.1728.com/gravity.htm
*http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/ca...alculator.html

The cosmic molecular cloud of what created Sirius, as being worth at
least 1.25e6 solar masses, while at a center to center distance of 100
ly and using our solar system mass of 2.05e30 kg for that same era, we
get the following results for 100 ly (9.46053e17 m), 50 ly (4.7303e17
m) and 10 ly (9.46053e16 m).
*2.05e30 kg *and *2.5e36 kg *at 100 ly = 3.819e20 Newtons
*2.05e30 kg *and *2.5e36 kg *at * 50 ly = 1.528e21 N
*2.05e30 kg *and *2.5e36 kg *at * 10 ly = 3.819e22 N

current (sun ~ earth) gravitational force of attraction:
*1.989e30 and 5.974e24 kg at 1.496e11 m = 3.541e22 N

current (sun ~ mars) gravitational force of attraction:
*1.989e30 and 6.418e23 kg at 2.2794e11 m = 1.639e21 N

current (sun ~ pluto) gravitational force of attraction:
*1.989e30 and 1.305e22 kg at 5.906e12 m = 4.964e16 N

current (solar system) ~ Sedna/average gravitational attraction:
*2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 7.867e13 m = 1.023e14 N

current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
*2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
*2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Being that a molecular cloud of at least 1.25e6 solar masses is going
to have a diameter of nearly 100 light years, as such I might suggest
that we use the 50 ly parameter for the adjusted distance from the
core density of such a molecular cloud, as for mutually binding us at
the weak gravity force of 1.528e21 N. *Of course by doubling that
distance cuts this tidal binding force of radial gravitational
attraction down to a forth, whereas even at 500 ly it’s still worth
1.528e19 N, and at the 2.5e37 solar masses brings that 500 ly distance
right back up to being worth 1.528e20 N.

The cosmic creation of the Sirius star/solar system was no small
matter of any wussy little molecular cloud. *This was an extremely
large cloud and subsequent stellar birthing event of relatively recent
times (250~300 MBP), and as such it would have been entirely visible
to the naked human eyes of that era (not that any intelligent human
via Darwin or intelligent design even existed at that time, although
Ed Conrad’s “Man of Coal” seems to be of that era), and as of most
recently transforming the red supergiant phase of Sirius B into a
white dwarf required a helium flashover (slow nova) about as close as
you can safely get, if not a little too close.

By way of reading from what others claiming to know more than most
anyone else (must be Einstein clones), it seems they’d have no
problems with suggesting the 1e6:1 cosmic molecular cloud of having
been worth 1.25e7 solar masses that created the Sirius star/solar
system, and if still using 2.05e30 kg mass for that of our solar
system of that same era results in yet another 10 fold increased force
of attraction for that same 50 ly distance, representing 1.528e22 N
(nearly half of the sun~earth attraction), and 99.9999% of this 1e6:1
molecular cloud that’s oddly nowhere to be found, by rights should
have greatly affected our solar system.

Try to remember that this wasn’t a one brief time kind of a cosmic
drive-by shooting, but most likely worth at least ten million years of
persistent gravity pull before that massive molecular cloud ever
having cranked out those impressive Sirius stars, and for at least
another million some odd years of having blown everything else
(99.999% of that molecular cloud) far away. *Once again, how can this
kind of nearby cosmic event and of such horrific original mass not
have affected our solar system?

This one shouldn’t be so hard to answer, but then our resident wizards
seem unable, and/or unwilling to share and share alike without
involving a great deal of bloodshed.


In order to put this tidal radius grip or Newtonian binding force of
well established orbital mechanics into proper context, that which an
average bloke can understand, it’s always good to draw upon whatever
we objectively know and collectively accept as being the case.

TNOs like Sedna, multiple thousands of SDOs and even a few of the
larger OCOs (Ort Cloud Objects) are no longer hard to find within the
radii of our vast Oort cloud that’s reaching way the hell out there at
the tidal radii of 3e16 meters, and isn’t exactly going anywhere
either, all because of the weak binding Newtonian force of gravity
(“the Sun's orb of physical, gravitational, or dynamical influence”).
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/tnoslist.html

Considering that we're still managing to hold onto Sedna;
current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

Whereas instead Sirius has apparently been holding onto us;
current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Now try to imagine whatever else the Sirius star/solar system of 3.5
solar masses is quite capable of its gravitational force holding onto,
not to mention as of prior to Sirius B having lost so much of it’s
mass by having been such a red supergiant and becoming a white dwarf,
and of not too long before then of whatever the original molecular
cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses had to offer (even at 500 ly it’s still
a worthy pull or attractive force of 1.528e20 N).

As is, that 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force
represents a 4763:1 greater grip than we have on Sedna. Of course you
can always trust the mainstream obfuscation from our resident
newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps
simply use 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 and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.404e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.709e9
N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system 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 an
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

In other words, we unavoidably became a Newtonian orbiting part or
member of that same Sirius molecular cloud, and having remained
associated with the Sirius star/solar system ever since. The 99.999%
remains of that original molecular cloud which gave birth to Sirius is
however nowhere in sight, which is rather odd in that our observing
instruments having imaged the cosmic remains of similar and/or far
less robust clouds at millions of light years away, suggesting that
the Sirius B helium flashover may have actually been more like a
sustained nova or possibly that of a supernovae which directly
affected our terrestrial environment, as likely having triggered our
final ice age thaw and most recent genetic mutations.

As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this,
because the laws of physics and the unavoidable Newtonian binding
force of gravity are entirely in charge of this one. Only a religious
skewed faith-based nutcase that systematically excludes such matters
of fact can manage to keep a straight face, as they publicly obfuscate
and otherwise remain in such perpetual denial, somewhat like a Pope in
denial of what their supposed Christian faith once did to those nice
Cathars (and yet how is it that mainstream religion and their devout
minions are never responsible for anything bad or unjust happening?).

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet"
  #10  
Old July 9th 09, 02:12 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, 6:06*am, BradGuth wrote:
In order to put this tidal radius grip or Newtonian binding force of
well established orbital mechanics into proper context, that which an
average bloke can understand, it’s always good to draw upon whatever
we objectively know and collectively accept as being the case.

TNOs like Sedna, multiple thousands of SDOs and even a few of the
larger OCOs (Ort Cloud Objects) are no longer hard to find within the
radii of our vast Oort cloud that’s reaching way the hell out there at
the tidal radii of 3e16 meters, and isn’t exactly going anywhere
either, all because of the weak binding Newtonian force of gravity
(“the Sun's orb of physical, gravitational, or dynamical influence”).
*http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/astro/tnoslist.html

Considering that we're still managing to hold onto Sedna;
*current (solar system) ~ Sedna/aphelion gravitational attraction:
*2.02e30 and 4.7e21 kg at 1.459e14 m = 2.975e13 N

Whereas instead Sirius has apparently been holding onto us;
*current (solar system) ~ Sirius gravitational force of attraction:
*2.02e30 and 6.9615e30 kg at 8.1365e16 m = 1.417e17 N

Now try to imagine whatever else the Sirius star/solar system of 3.5
solar masses is quite capable of its gravitational force holding onto,
not to mention as of prior to Sirius B having lost so much of it’s
mass by having been such a red supergiant and becoming a white dwarf,
and of not too long before then of whatever the original molecular
cloud of 1.25e7 solar masses had to offer (even at 500 ly it’s still
a worthy pull or attractive force of 1.528e20 N).

As is, that 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force
represents a 4763:1 greater grip than we have on Sedna. Of course you
can always trust the mainstream obfuscation from our resident
newsgroup rabbi, or you can always do the math yourself, or perhaps
simply use 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 and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.404e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.709e9
N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system 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 an
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

In other words, we unavoidably became a Newtonian orbiting part or
member of that same Sirius molecular cloud, and having remained
associated with the Sirius star/solar system ever since. The 99.999%
remains of that original molecular cloud which gave birth to Sirius is
however nowhere in sight, which is rather odd in that our observing
instruments having imaged the cosmic remains of similar and/or far
less robust clouds at millions of light years away, suggesting that
the Sirius B helium flashover may have actually been more like a
sustained nova or possibly that of a supernovae which directly
affected our terrestrial environment, as likely having triggered our
final ice age thaw and most recent genetic mutations.

As I've said often before, you do not have to take my word on this,
because the laws of physics and the unavoidable Newtonian binding
force of gravity are entirely in charge of this one. *Only a religious
skewed faith-based nutcase that systematically excludes such matters
of fact can manage to keep a straight face, as they publicly obfuscate
and otherwise remain in such perpetual denial, somewhat like a Pope in
denial of what their supposed Christian faith once did to those nice
Cathars (and yet how is it that mainstream religion and their devout
minions are never responsible for anything bad or unjust happening?).


This isn’t even hocus-pocus rocket science, instead it’s just plain
old Newtonian physics that a dysfunctional 5th grader should
understand.

As is, the 1.417e17 N worth of the Sirius tidal radii holding force
represents a 4763:1 greater grip than we have 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

Not to further nitpick, however there’s 2005-VX3 / damocloid(asteroid)
of 112 km diameter and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s hanging
all the way out to 2275.5 AU (3.404e14 m) that’s worth merely 1.709e9
N, and even it’s not going away from our solar system 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 an
elliptical Newtonian trek should.

The Sirius star/solar system as having recently evolved from scratch
as of supposedly 200300 million years ago, and then only most
recently its Sirius B having gone soft/slow nova as it converted
itself from the original 8.5 solar mass into a red supergiant worth
perhaps as much as 5.7 ( 5.3) solar masses, as having that impressive
1000 fold radii, finally got itself down to the helium flashover phase
of suddenly becoming a white dwarf within perhaps as recently as a few
million years ago. In other words, having been close enough as to
creating a living hell on Earth with a second sun until after the red
supergiant and final helium flashover demise of becoming the nearly
invisible white dwarf. The original Sirius B luminosity was likely
worth 10,000 times brighter than our sun, and perhaps the combined
luminosity of Sirius ABC was likely worth 20,000 times brighter than
our sun. However, since so much of its spectrum was UV would mean
that the energy received from the Sirius star/solar system was
actually worth something considerably greater to that of our mostly
wet and growing environment of that era.

The original location of Sirius and especially that of its terrific
molecular cloud of perhaps 1.25e6 solar masses (1.25e51.25e7) is
still not objectively known (almost as though it materialized out of
nowhere and just as suddenly vanished), nor has whatever previous
proper motions of either us or the remainder of that molecular cloud
been plotted or ever so much as virtually identified via supercomputer
simulations. We have obviously lost any observable track of such
remainders of that terrific molecular cloud, because of the Sirius B
helium flashover having apparently so extensively blown it all away,
and somehow supposedly not having affected us.

Perhaps the public funded mainstream mindset of astrophysics and
related science simply doesn’t want the rest of us village idiots to
know exactly whatever such a nearby star/solar system as Sirius could
have come from, or having done to us.

It takes a fairly substantial ratio of mostly hydrogen and some helium
consumption, plus a staggering CME loss of roughly causing a third of
its original stellar mass to go away, before a star becomes a worthy
full blown red giant or supergiant, thereby making the red supergiant
of Betelgeuse originally worth an impressive 30+ solar masses.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegrea...t_to_blow.html
Yes indeed, perhaps Betelgeuse should eventually blow our socks off
with one hell of a nova or possibly supernovae climax as it becomes a
fairly substantial white dwarf or possibly turns itself into a neutron
star, and rather soon if there's an ongoing shrinkage of 1%/year for
the past 15 years (actually its helium flashover into becoming a white
dwarf or that of a neutron star has already taken place as of more
than 550 years ago, because it’s 600 light years away from us).

Here’s my further revised/edited version of stellar timelines that’ll
offer some alternative interpretation as to the recent birth and rapid
evolution of the Sirius star/solar system, and of this process most
likely having impacted our relatively nearby and passive solar system.

Our sun that supposedly took 100 million years in order to assemble
itself, consumes or burns its way through 4.28e9 kg/sec of mostly
hydrogen (or rather its more like burning through plus otherwise
having been CME tossing away 3e12 kg/sec, and perhaps even 4e12 kg/
sec if it were taking less than 9 billion years of its stellar
evolution to becoming a white dwarf). Supposedly within another 4.5
billion years our sun will have noticeably expanded into a red giant,
and otherwise by at most 7.5 billion from now it should have become a
full blown red giant of at least 250 radii before the exact same kind
of measurable shrinkage and helium flashover phase into becoming a
white dwarf of perhaps not larger than Mars.

On the other hand, the original Sirius B of 8.5 solar masses had an
extremely short timeline up until reaching its most recent white dwarf
phase, as having obtained this status at roughly 500 times faster
stellar evolution than our sun reaching it’s white dwarf phase within
roughly 12e9 years (in other words, at merely 4.28e9 kg/sec our sun is
almost never going to die off unless something extremely large smacks
into it). On the other nearby stellar hand, Sirius B may have evolved
itself within as little as 150 million years, before having become the
white dwarf as of something less than 64 million years ago. However,
Sirius C could have also played an important roll at the same time or
before Sirius B evolved into the white dwarf. Perhaps the last thing
anyone within mainstream science wants any of us to have is that
TRACEe3 taking a much higher resolved look-see.

Sirius B had to burn through its fuel and otherwise toss mass away at
1.6e16 kg/sec, perhaps an average mass reduction rate of 4e15 kg/
sec.

In other words, having to consume roughly 8+ times as much mass in as
little as 1/60th the time is what has to represent an extremely
vibrant stellar neighbor (as a nearly exploding or slow nova kind of
highly terrestrial UV illuminating star), especially along with the
original of Sirius A at perhaps 3+ solar mass and Sirius C at whatever
it started out as perhaps worth 1 solar mass, all together
representing one heck of a great deal of stellar mass consuming and
CMEs tossing sufficient stellar volumes of mostly hydrogen, helium
plus a few other heavier plasma elements as representing considerable
mass leaving that vibrant star system, and wasn’t any too far away
from us.

Now that’s a seriously hot kind of active star system that’s sharing
loads of substantial hard-X-rays and gamma, taking place at perhaps
less than 10 light years from us, while the red supergiant phase and
its helium flashover (aka slow nova) into becoming the little white
dwarf happening even closer to us, and perhaps closer yet if there’s
any barycenter orbital considerations due to the original molecular
cloud of 1.2e6 or greater solar masses that obviously had to exist as
of 250~350 million years ago.

Our Earth and moon are also in the process of each losing mass, and at
the very least we are losing a combined 1e3 kg/sec in addition to the
3e12 kg/sec that our sun is losing. Given the persistent 350~450 km/s
of solar wind that’s gently pushing upon us (not to mention the added
force of halo CMEs), is suggesting it’s most likely this gradual
ongoing loss of such mass and its worth of gravity is what’s causing
the majority of our orbital recession (under 15 cm/year) away from the
sun. This could actually become a good thing, especially if we could
somehow manage to artificially cause Earth and our moon combined to
lose 1e4 kg/sec, while our sun keeps getting more into the IR
spectrum that’ll eventually become an inflated red giant of 250 times
radii, along with fluctuations and the increased loss of mass reaching
its highly charged plasma out nearly to the Mars radii, means that
Earth needs to get as far away form our sun as possible, and the
sooner the better. By then, we’d actually be a whole lot better off
as a moon of Saturn or Jupiter.

Nothing all that much to worry about: (as long as our fading
geomagnetic force doesn’t entirely fail us)
http://spaceweather.gmu.edu/index_files/cme.jpg
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/images/lasco-c2-cme.jpg
http://www.astronomycast.com/wp-cont...007/04/cme.jpg
http://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/gallery/...ombo1_prev.jpg
http://ct.gsfc.nasa.gov/insights/vol13/tele.htm

Btw; Sirius C could have been the original big one of 10 solar
masses, and Sirius A has most likely gone through nearly 30% of it’s
original mass and is about to become an impressive red supergiant of
its very own once exceeding a mass reduction of 33% via consumption
and CME losses, of especially accelerated stellar evolution with a
nearby Sirius B sucking the hydrogen life out of Sirius A, as such
isn’t exactly retarding this process. Fortunately, Sirius A is not
going to become nearly as red supergiant as Sirius B, however the
helium flashover phase (at a forth the Sirius B mass) may happen a
whole lot closer to us, as we’re being pulled along our elliptical
Newtonian trek towards Sirius at 7.6 km/s and accelerating.

Of course, within the next few thousand years there’ll also be
considerably less terrestrial geomagnetic sustained magnetosphere, and
otherwise insufficient energy resources for Eden/Earth to sustain much
other than robust bugs, microbes and spores of whatever we’d once had
been. That kind of human genetic progression is actually a very
insignificant cosmic amount of time (having existed as an intelligent
species within less than 0.1% of Eden thus far, and only formally
educated in physics and science within the last 0.0001%) , especially
special terminal considering that we’re also headed into the Great
Attractor, plus way before then getting nailed by the Andromeda
galaxy, so not to worry about such matters is best, even though
advancing technology could help salvage our otherwise certain demise.
Too bad the previous million years of terrestrial human life had been
so utterly wasted, as otherwise perhaps we’ll have better luck next
time unless some faith-based cults and their cabals have other
intentions.

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




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 26th 03 11:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2022 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.