Sirius and us, Newtonian inseparable / FAS & Brad Guth

On Nov 15, 11:52*am, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in ...

Are you saying that when Sirius(B) went nova, that our solar system
and the environment of Earth was entirely unaffected?

There might have been some influence. *Nothing in the geological
record indicates anything of note.

Much of our "geological record" had been reset as of the last ice-age,
not to mention after having been impacted by our Selene/moon, or do
you have some other notions as to how and when that absolutely
enormous lunar south pole crater materialized?.

btw, what would happen to the relatively thin crust of Earth if
merely a near miss from a 7.5e22 kg rock at 2r took place? (at 1 km/s
I got a land/crust tidal morph estimate of roughly 128 meters, though
it should be a whole lot worse because half of each mass is 1r closer,
in that perhaps it should therefore be at the very least worth 256 if
not 512 meters)

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message ...

Are you suggesting that our sun was never in the past 300+ MBP
attracted towards the Sirius star system? (because oddly we seem to be
going that way, again)

Gee, there are many stars that are headed in that (not towards Sirius)
direction, Guthie. All stars in the galaxy are attracted to one another,
Guthie.

How come Procyon isn't orbiting Sirius, Guthie? It's much closer. It's
going in a different direction. Gee, I wonder why this is, Guthie.

That's odd, because I've only mentioned those pesky laws of physics
and best available science that obviously takes a little deductive
interpreting here and there, whereas with you it seems nothing matters
if it revises anything. I take it you worked for GW Bush and company.

Actually, most of what you proffer is drivel. Chewing your way out of the
padded cell is not thinking "outside the box".

How very correct, and those Sirius Oort clouds are exactly or best
swag located where?

The Oort cloud Sirius is in, is, well, around Sirius. One cannot mutually
exclude, nor include, origins for any or all. See how that works? Probably
not.

Sirius B did its nearby nova thing at roughly 6 Ms, and perhaps not
even as long ago or as far away as published in your mainstream bible
that can't ever be revised.

What bible is that?

Much of the "geological record" had been reset as of the last ice-age,
not to mention after having been impacted by our Selene/moon, or do
you have some other notions as to how that absolutely enormous lunar
south pole crater materialized?.

Much? Some is a better word, don't you think? Check out the tropics.

btw, what would happen to the relatively thin crust of Earth if
merely a near miss from a 7.5e22 kg rock at 2r took place? (at 1 km/s
I got a land/crust tidal morph estimate of roughly 128 meters)

Another diversion? Why not posit this into a thread titled accordingly, then
X-post to relevant newsgroups?

What do you make of the Z axis of Sirius?

The Z axis is relative to those elliptical XY components, all of which
are on the move. However, what's really important is what the XYZ of
Sol is doing.

Unlike yourself, I still sort of believe in the weak force of gravity
(6.7e-11 N), even though other forces are so much stronger.

Ah, yes. Change the argument, again. Not long ago you were telling me
that gravity was a weak force, and I was telling you that it wasn't "that"
weak. Which is it, Brad? My argument has not changed.

Yes, gravity is the weakest of the four forces, I know that.

Back to the point, what direction is Sirius headed in?

On Nov 16, 1:20*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in ...
Are you suggesting that our sun was never in the past 300+ MBP
attracted towards the Sirius star system? (because oddly we seem to be
going that way, again)

Gee, there are many stars that are headed in that (not towards Sirius)
direction, Guthie. *All stars in the galaxy are attracted to one another,
Guthie.

Exactly, and some stars are more attracted to one another than
others. I still think it has something to do with gravity, or perhaps
even electrostatic and/or magnetic attraction can't be ruled out.


How come Procyon isn't orbiting Sirius, Guthie? *It's much closer. *It's
going in a different direction. *Gee, I wonder why this is, Guthie.

If a substantial mass has been moving away from a given star, it's
much harder for that extremely weak force of gravity to rein in such
items.


That's odd, because I've only mentioned those pesky laws of physics
and best available science that obviously takes a little deductive
interpreting here and there, whereas with you it seems nothing matters
if it revises anything. *I take it you worked for GW Bush and company..

Actually, most of what you proffer is drivel. *Chewing your way out of the
padded cell is not thinking "outside the box".

You don't have to accept or even ponder through anything you don't
want to, at least that was the thinking by the likes of Hitler, GW
Bush and Dick Cheney. Perpetual naysay and denial of being in denial
works every time.


How very correct, and those Sirius Oort clouds are exactly or best
swag located where?

The Oort cloud Sirius is in, is, well, around Sirius. *One cannot mutually
exclude, nor include, origins for any or all. *See how that works? *Probably
not.

Our Oort cloud extends out roughly one ly. Makes it seem likely the
much greater Sirius Oort cloud radii (especially after Sirius[b] went
postal) could be getting nearby or even overtaking our Oort cloud.


Sirius B did its nearby nova thing at roughly 6 Ms, and perhaps not
even as long ago or as far away as published in your mainstream bible
that can't ever be revised.

What bible is that?

That NASA approved good book of published physics and science that you
obviously believe in, as though it was the one and only last word of
God.


Much of the "geological record" had been reset as of the last ice-age,
not to mention after having been impacted by our Selene/moon, or do
you have some other notions as to how that absolutely enormous lunar
south pole crater materialized?.

Much? *Some is a better word, don't you think? *Check out the tropics..

btw, *what would happen to the relatively thin crust of Earth if
merely a near miss from a 7.5e22 kg rock at 2r took place? (at 1 km/s
I got a land/crust tidal morph estimate of roughly 128 meters)

Another diversion? *Why not posit this into a thread titled accordingly, then
X-post to relevant newsgroups?

Because it's a related subtopic that makes perfect logic as to how and
when this Eden/Earth got nailed by an icy Selene.

What would happen to the relatively thin crust of Earth if merely a
near miss from a 7.5e22 kg rock at 2r took place? (at 1 km/s I got a
land/crust tidal morph estimate of roughly 128 meters, though it
should be a whole lot worse because half of each mass is 1r closer, in
that perhaps it should therefore be at the very least worth 256 if not
512 meters), and I’d expect the ocean tidal bulge of at least ten fold
as much greater then whatever land/crust bulge.


What do you make of the Z axis of Sirius?

The Z axis is relative to those elliptical XY components, all of which
are on the move. *However, what's really important is what the XYZ of
Sol is doing.

Unlike yourself, I still sort of believe in the weak force of gravity
(6.7e-11 N), even though other forces are so much stronger.

Ah, yes. *Change the argument, again. *Not long ago you were telling me
that gravity was a weak force, and I was telling you that it wasn't "that"
weak. *Which is it, Brad? *My argument has not changed.

Yes, gravity is the weakest of the four forces, I know that.

Back to the point, what direction is Sirius headed in?

Elliptically towards us, or rather we are the ones being elliptically
attracted as that weak force of gravity is moving us back towards the
Sirius star system, that which not so very long ago was worth 12.5
Ms, and before then was only a massive molecular cloud of 1.25e7 Ms
which subsequently vanished into less than thin air (so to speak), as
possibly passing through us roughly 260 MYBP, and then we got the
second round of that Sirius(B) nova gamma shockwave doing yet another
nasty number on us as of roughly 64 MYBP, followed by all that
residual flack of various planets and proto-moons that Sirius(B) gave
up.

~ BG

On Nov 15, 3:43*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 14, 12:34*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:



"BradGuth" wrote in ...
We're now closing in on Sirius at 9.4 km/sec?

That's actually impressive, in that only a few years ago the Radial
Velocity was still reported as -7.6 km/sec, and now it's up to -9.4 km/
s.

If not orbital mechanics and that pesky Newtonian thing of gravity,
what's going on? (why this increase in our radial velocity with
respect to Sirius?)

That number is not current. *It was the information that I wanted you
to look at, the coordinates provided, and the motion of each
axis relative to Sol. *See below

Information provided by:http://www.stellar-database.com/fields.html

/quote:

Celestial (X,Y,Z) coordinates in ly: The coordinates of this star in space, relative to our own sun, in units of light-years. *The
first ("x") coordinate points toward the Equinox Point. *The second ("y") coordinate points toward a spot in the sky at 0
declination and at a right angle to the Equinox Point. *The third ("z") coordinate points toward the celestial north pole, at a
declination of +90 degrees. *Our sun represents the point [0, 0, 0] in this coordinate system. *These coordinates are used to find
the distance between any two stars, instead of just their distance from our own sun.

Note that these coordinates represent the position of the star as it was in the "epoch" given for its right ascension and
declination; centuries from now, most stars will have moved enough that these coordinates will have changed noticeably. *Note also
that spatial coordinates will be no more accurate than the distance measurement to the star.

Galactic (X,Y,Z) coordinates in ly: Similar to Celestial coordinates, but pointing along a set of axes that's not quite so
geocentric. *The first ("x") coordinate points directly toward the center of our galaxy (which, in the Earth's night sky, is at a
right ascension of 17h42m4s and a declination of -28°55'). *The second ("y") coordinate points along the galactic plane in the
direction of galactic rotation, at right angles to the "x" axis. The third ("z") coordinate points straight out of the plane of the
galaxy, parallel to the galactic north pole, at right angles to both the "x" and "y" axes. *As with Celestial coordinates, our sun
represents the point [0, 0, 0] in this coordinate system.

Galactic (U,V,W) velocity components in km/s: How fast the entire star system is changing its first, second, and third spatial
coordinates, in kilometers per second; i.e., how fast the stellar system is moving, and in what direction, relative to our own sun.
Since it takes 9 455 000 million kilometers to span one light-year, a star with a velocity vector of (-1, 0, 0) would take 9 455 000
million seconds (about 300 000 years) to change its spatial coordinates from [5.5, 3.8, -2.3] to [4.5, 3.8, -2.3]. *By definition,
the sun's velocity vector is (0, 0, 0).

Note that the sun is in motion relative to the "local standard of rest" within our own galaxy. *To get a star's galactic-relative
velocity, you have to add the sun's local-standard-of-rest-relative velocity of (10.4, 14.8, 7.3) to what's listed here for that
star. *This is usually only important if you want to guess at how a given star is orbiting the center of the galaxy, which is not a
subject for this text. *Note also that the velocity vector will be no more accurate than the distance measurement to the star.

/quote

Regardless, with a closure rate of 7.6 k/sec (closest known number I know; July 2009),
and a distance of 8.5 ly, a fly-by won't happen for about 1.24 trillion years. *Of course
both stars, and the Earth, *will be toast by then.

Note: Radial velocity is not a heading. *It is the apparent line of sight velocity of an
object. *That's why I want you to LOOK at the other coordinate numbers and try to
figure some things out from there.

Are you still suggesting that the Newtonian law of gravity doesn't
apply to stars? *If so, why are merging or even passing nearby
galaxies morphing one another, and from such great distances of 2r or
even twice their diameter (4r)?

I simply want to run this local stellar relationship in a good
simulator, and that's still pretty much what I want to see in a full
3D interactive format. *I believe our elliptical trek is that of a
10:1 or tighter elliptical.

According to this most recent data, Sirius is going to become nearby
within 275,000 years at -9.4 km/s. *However, our radial velocity that
has us closing in on Sirius seems to be speeding up, as though we’ve
turned that elliptical corner and we’re headed into the near
straightaway. *As of just a few years ago it was reported as –7.6,
then became updated as -9.1 and now it’s –9.4 km/sec.http://www.stellar-database.com/Scri...tar.exe?ID=600

When will this radial velocity reach -100 km/sec?

Btw, your funny math of "a fly-by won't happen for about 1.24 trillion
years" is every bit as stupendous as perhaps God intended.

*~ BG

Nothing much to add or subtract, other than restating that the gravity
influence of the Sirius star system is still in charge of our solar
system. The closing radial velocity may never reach 100 km/s, but it
will increase from it's current velocity because, that's exactly what
our elliptical orbit will do from our perspective.

~ BG

On Nov 29, 10:57*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 15, 3:43*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Nov 14, 12:34*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in ...
We're now closing in on Sirius at 9.4 km/sec?

That's actually impressive, in that only a few years ago the Radial
Velocity was still reported as -7.6 km/sec, and now it's up to -9.4 km/
s.

If not orbital mechanics and that pesky Newtonian thing of gravity,
what's going on? (why this increase in our radial velocity with
respect to Sirius?)

That number is not current. *It was the information that I wanted you
to look at, the coordinates provided, and the motion of each
axis relative to Sol. *See below

Information provided by:http://www.stellar-database.com/fields.html

/quote:

Celestial (X,Y,Z) coordinates in ly: The coordinates of this star in space, relative to our own sun, in units of light-years. *The
first ("x") coordinate points toward the Equinox Point. *The second ("y") coordinate points toward a spot in the sky at 0
declination and at a right angle to the Equinox Point. *The third ("z") coordinate points toward the celestial north pole, at a
declination of +90 degrees. *Our sun represents the point [0, 0, 0] in this coordinate system. *These coordinates are used to find
the distance between any two stars, instead of just their distance from our own sun.

Note that these coordinates represent the position of the star as it was in the "epoch" given for its right ascension and
declination; centuries from now, most stars will have moved enough that these coordinates will have changed noticeably. *Note also
that spatial coordinates will be no more accurate than the distance measurement to the star.

Galactic (X,Y,Z) coordinates in ly: Similar to Celestial coordinates, but pointing along a set of axes that's not quite so
geocentric. *The first ("x") coordinate points directly toward the center of our galaxy (which, in the Earth's night sky, is at a
right ascension of 17h42m4s and a declination of -28°55'). *The second ("y") coordinate points along the galactic plane in the
direction of galactic rotation, at right angles to the "x" axis. The third ("z") coordinate points straight out of the plane of the
galaxy, parallel to the galactic north pole, at right angles to both the "x" and "y" axes. *As with Celestial coordinates, our sun
represents the point [0, 0, 0] in this coordinate system.

Galactic (U,V,W) velocity components in km/s: How fast the entire star system is changing its first, second, and third spatial
coordinates, in kilometers per second; i.e., how fast the stellar system is moving, and in what direction, relative to our own sun.
Since it takes 9 455 000 million kilometers to span one light-year, a star with a velocity vector of (-1, 0, 0) would take 9 455 000
million seconds (about 300 000 years) to change its spatial coordinates from [5.5, 3.8, -2.3] to [4.5, 3.8, -2.3]. *By definition,
the sun's velocity vector is (0, 0, 0).

Note that the sun is in motion relative to the "local standard of rest" within our own galaxy. *To get a star's galactic-relative
velocity, you have to add the sun's local-standard-of-rest-relative velocity of (10.4, 14.8, 7.3) to what's listed here for that
star. *This is usually only important if you want to guess at how a given star is orbiting the center of the galaxy, which is not a
subject for this text. *Note also that the velocity vector will be no more accurate than the distance measurement to the star.

/quote

Regardless, with a closure rate of 7.6 k/sec (closest known number I know; July 2009),
and a distance of 8.5 ly, a fly-by won't happen for about 1.24 trillion years. *Of course
both stars, and the Earth, *will be toast by then.

Note: Radial velocity is not a heading. *It is the apparent line of sight velocity of an
object. *That's why I want you to LOOK at the other coordinate numbers and try to
figure some things out from there.

Are you still suggesting that the Newtonian law of gravity doesn't
apply to stars? *If so, why are merging or even passing nearby
galaxies morphing one another, and from such great distances of 2r or
even twice their diameter (4r)?

I simply want to run this local stellar relationship in a good
simulator, and that's still pretty much what I want to see in a full
3D interactive format. *I believe our elliptical trek is that of a
10:1 or tighter elliptical.

According to this most recent data, Sirius is going to become nearby
within 275,000 years at -9.4 km/s. *However, our radial velocity that
has us closing in on Sirius seems to be speeding up, as though we’ve
turned that elliptical corner and we’re headed into the near
straightaway. *As of just a few years ago it was reported as –7.6,
then became updated as -9.1 and now it’s –9.4 km/sec.http://www.stellar-database.com/Scri...tar.exe?ID=600

When will this radial velocity reach -100 km/sec?

Btw, your funny math of "a fly-by won't happen for about 1.24 trillion
years" is every bit as stupendous as perhaps God intended.

Nothing much to add or subtract, other than restating that the gravity
influence of the Sirius star system is still in charge of our solar
system. *The closing radial velocity may never reach 100 km/s, but it
will increase from it's current velocity because, that's exactly what
our elliptical orbit will do from our perspective.

Why not reconsider the likely cause and affect that this extremely
weak force of gravity plays between our solar system and that of the
dominate Sirius star/solar system?

~ BG

On Dec 3, 1:49*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 29, 10:57*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Nov 15, 3:43*am, BradGuth wrote:

On Nov 14, 12:34*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:

"BradGuth" wrote in ...
We're now closing in on Sirius at 9.4 km/sec?

That's actually impressive, in that only a few years ago the Radial
Velocity was still reported as -7.6 km/sec, and now it's up to -9..4 km/
s.

If not orbital mechanics and that pesky Newtonian thing of gravity,
what's going on? (why this increase in our radial velocity with
respect to Sirius?)

That number is not current. *It was the information that I wanted you
to look at, the coordinates provided, and the motion of each
axis relative to Sol. *See below

Information provided by:http://www.stellar-database.com/fields.html

/quote:

Celestial (X,Y,Z) coordinates in ly: The coordinates of this star in space, relative to our own sun, in units of light-years. *The
first ("x") coordinate points toward the Equinox Point. *The second ("y") coordinate points toward a spot in the sky at 0
declination and at a right angle to the Equinox Point. *The third ("z") coordinate points toward the celestial north pole, at a
declination of +90 degrees. *Our sun represents the point [0, 0, 0] in this coordinate system. *These coordinates are used to find
the distance between any two stars, instead of just their distance from our own sun.

Note that these coordinates represent the position of the star as it was in the "epoch" given for its right ascension and
declination; centuries from now, most stars will have moved enough that these coordinates will have changed noticeably. *Note also
that spatial coordinates will be no more accurate than the distance measurement to the star.

Galactic (X,Y,Z) coordinates in ly: Similar to Celestial coordinates, but pointing along a set of axes that's not quite so
geocentric. *The first ("x") coordinate points directly toward the center of our galaxy (which, in the Earth's night sky, is at a
right ascension of 17h42m4s and a declination of -28°55'). *The second ("y") coordinate points along the galactic plane in the
direction of galactic rotation, at right angles to the "x" axis. The third ("z") coordinate points straight out of the plane of the
galaxy, parallel to the galactic north pole, at right angles to both the "x" and "y" axes. *As with Celestial coordinates, our sun
represents the point [0, 0, 0] in this coordinate system.

Galactic (U,V,W) velocity components in km/s: How fast the entire star system is changing its first, second, and third spatial
coordinates, in kilometers per second; i.e., how fast the stellar system is moving, and in what direction, relative to our own sun.
Since it takes 9 455 000 million kilometers to span one light-year, a star with a velocity vector of (-1, 0, 0) would take 9 455 000
million seconds (about 300 000 years) to change its spatial coordinates from [5.5, 3.8, -2.3] to [4.5, 3.8, -2.3]. *By definition,
the sun's velocity vector is (0, 0, 0).

Note that the sun is in motion relative to the "local standard of rest" within our own galaxy. *To get a star's galactic-relative
velocity, you have to add the sun's local-standard-of-rest-relative velocity of (10.4, 14.8, 7.3) to what's listed here for that
star. *This is usually only important if you want to guess at how a given star is orbiting the center of the galaxy, which is not a
subject for this text. *Note also that the velocity vector will be no more accurate than the distance measurement to the star.

/quote

Regardless, with a closure rate of 7.6 k/sec (closest known number I know; July 2009),
and a distance of 8.5 ly, a fly-by won't happen for about 1.24 trillion years. *Of course
both stars, and the Earth, *will be toast by then.

Note: Radial velocity is not a heading. *It is the apparent line of sight velocity of an
object. *That's why I want you to LOOK at the other coordinate numbers and try to
figure some things out from there.

Are you still suggesting that the Newtonian law of gravity doesn't
apply to stars? *If so, why are merging or even passing nearby
galaxies morphing one another, and from such great distances of 2r or
even twice their diameter (4r)?

I simply want to run this local stellar relationship in a good
simulator, and that's still pretty much what I want to see in a full
3D interactive format. *I believe our elliptical trek is that of a
10:1 or tighter elliptical.

According to this most recent data, Sirius is going to become nearby
within 275,000 years at -9.4 km/s. *However, our radial velocity that
has us closing in on Sirius seems to be speeding up, as though we’ve
turned that elliptical corner and we’re headed into the near
straightaway. *As of just a few years ago it was reported as –7.6,
then became updated as -9.1 and now it’s –9.4 km/sec.http://www.stellar-database.com/Scri...tar.exe?ID=600

When will this radial velocity reach -100 km/sec?

Btw, your funny math of "a fly-by won't happen for about 1.24 trillion
years" is every bit as stupendous as perhaps God intended.

Nothing much to add or subtract, other than restating that the gravity
influence of the Sirius star system is still in charge of our solar
system. *The closing radial velocity may never reach 100 km/s, but it
will increase from it's current velocity because, that's exactly what
our elliptical orbit will do from our perspective.

Why not reconsider the likely cause and affect that this extremely
weak force of gravity plays between our solar system and that of the
dominate Sirius star/solar system?

Not to further nitpick, however there’s still 2005-VX3 / damocloid
(asteroid)
of 112 km diameter and perhaps worth at most 1.47e18 kg that’s
hanging
on 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 orbital trek should.

So, if dominated by Sirius at 83e6:1 greater Newtonian attractive
force isn't good enough for you, then perhaps nothing is.

~ BG

On Nov 13, 11:59*am, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in ...
Bradnever explains how the Alpha Centauri system, Barnard's Star,
Wolf 359, and Lalande 21185, all closer to us than Sirius, fit into
this supposedly gravitationally linked up system.

It's called goofy fixation.

Is this newsgroup actually alt.duh?

Everything is in orbit around something, including the most rogue of
stars trekking at 0.5c. However, the original 12.5 Ms worth of the
nearby Sirius star/solar system had all the right stuff, and
especially when you consider what horrific mass its molecular cloud
had to offer.

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Nov 13, 11:59 am, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in
...
Bradnever explains how the Alpha Centauri system, Barnard's Star,
Wolf 359, and Lalande 21185, all closer to us than Sirius, fit into
this supposedly gravitationally linked up system.

It's called goofy fixation.

Is this newsgroup actually alt.duh?

Everything is in orbit around something, including the most rogue of
stars trekking at 0.5c. However, the original 12.5 Ms worth of the
nearby Sirius star/solar system had all the right stuff, and
especially when you consider what horrific mass its molecular cloud
had to offer.

~ BG

Y O U W E R E T H E R E ! tee hee

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!

On Dec 18, 7:23*am, "Lomriy" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Nov 13, 11:59 am, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in
...
Bradnever explains how the Alpha Centauri system, Barnard's Star,
Wolf 359, and Lalande 21185, all closer to us than Sirius, fit into
this supposedly gravitationally linked up system.

It's called goofy fixation.

Is this newsgroup actually alt.duh?

Everything is in orbit around something, including the most rogue of
stars trekking at 0.5c. *However, the original 12.5 Ms worth of the
nearby Sirius star/solar system had all the right stuff, and
especially when you consider what horrific mass its molecular cloud
had to offer.

~ BG

Y O U * W E R E * T H E R E ! tee hee

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!

Your 'sean' book of puns is noted.

Can I speak with your supervisor?

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 7:23 am, "Lomriy" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...



On Nov 13, 11:59 am, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"Double-A" wrote in
...
Bradnever explains how the Alpha Centauri system, Barnard's Star,
Wolf 359, and Lalande 21185, all closer to us than Sirius, fit into
this supposedly gravitationally linked up system.

It's called goofy fixation.

Is this newsgroup actually alt.duh?

Everything is in orbit around something, including the most rogue of
stars trekking at 0.5c. However, the original 12.5 Ms worth of the
nearby Sirius star/solar system had all the right stuff, and
especially when you consider what horrific mass its molecular cloud
had to offer.

~ BG

Y O U W E R E T H E R E ! tee hee

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!

Your 'sean' book of puns is noted.

Can I speak with your supervisor?

~ BG

That would be Aaross, my trainer.
I don't even know where she is right now, so, sorry.

Would you like me to get Kiyo?
She's human, and she commands this system while Mom's sur une mission.

--
**** Lomie
Be well and come... be welcome
You are the fifth star!