Addressing the formation of the solar system

On 11/04/09 03:06, BURT wrote:

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

The lagrange points aren't as useful as you might think, since your
observational field is more limited.

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Insufficient data.
From where? Using what? In what frequency / area / etc ?

On Apr 10, 7:06*pm, BURT wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Apr 10, 2:23*pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye

Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

*~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Mitch Raemsch

Since there's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of new photons
per second being continually created per cubic light year, go figure
the amount of cosmic data is nearly endless per any given cubic light
year.

One cubic light year = 8.467e47 m3
Volume of our universe = 2e33 x 8.467e47 = 16.934e80 m3
Atoms within our universe of 1.7e81 m3 at 0.1 atom/m3 = 1.7e80 atoms

Photons/second = ?.?e?? x 31.536e6 = ??.??e???/year

~ BG

On Apr 11, 8:26*am, Mark McIntyre
wrote:
On 11/04/09 03:06, BURT wrote:



Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

The lagrange points aren't as useful as you might think, since your
observational field is more limited.

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Insufficient data.
*From where? Using what? In what frequency / area / etc ?

Your mindset and obfuscation is noted. Did our God invent box limited
thinking and denial to boot?

Your taboo of Selene L1 is also noted.

~ BG

On Apr 11, 8:49*am, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 10, 7:06*pm, BURT wrote:





On Apr 10, 2:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 10, 2:23*pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye

Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

*~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Mitch Raemsch

Since there's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of new photons
per second being continually created per cubic light year, go figure
the amount of cosmic data is nearly endless per any given cubic light
year.

One cubic light year = 8.467e47 m3
Volume of our universe = 2e33 x 8.467e47 = 16.934e80 m3
Atoms within our universe of 1.7e81 m3 at 0.1 atom/m3 = 1.7e80 atoms

Photons/second = ?.?e?? x 31.536e6 = ??.??e???/year

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does this data contribute to our understanding?
How do we know how to interpret it?

Mitch Raemsch

On Apr 11, 2:04*pm, BURT wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:49*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Apr 10, 7:06*pm, BURT wrote:

On Apr 10, 2:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 10, 2:23*pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye

Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

*~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Mitch Raemsch

Since there's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of new photons
per second being continually created per cubic light year, go figure
the amount of cosmic data is nearly endless per any given cubic light
year.

One cubic light year = 8.467e47 m3
Volume of our universe = 2e33 x 8.467e47 = 16.934e80 m3
Atoms within our universe of 1.7e81 m3 at 0.1 atom/m3 = 1.7e80 atoms

Photons/second = ?.?e?? x 31.536e6 = ??.??e???/year

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does this data contribute to our understanding?
How do we know how to interpret it?

Mitch Raemsch

Most of what we need to learn about our solar system, galaxy and
universe is accessible in the form of photons, though mostly of them
photons we can't see.

The trick is in the observationology phase, of deductively
interpreting the best we can, and above all never being unwilling to
revise past interpretations for the greater good.

Eventually physical probes can finish nailing whatever coffins shut,
but until then it's up to our subjective observationology to figure
out whatever's most likely.

~ BG

On Apr 11, 2:04*pm, BURT wrote:
On Apr 11, 8:49*am, BradGuth wrote:



On Apr 10, 7:06*pm, BURT wrote:

On Apr 10, 2:54*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Apr 10, 2:23*pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye

Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho

With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

*~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

Mitch Raemsch

Since there's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of new photons
per second being continually created per cubic light year, go figure
the amount of cosmic data is nearly endless per any given cubic light
year.

One cubic light year = 8.467e47 m3
Volume of our universe = 2e33 x 8.467e47 = 16.934e80 m3
Atoms within our universe of 1.7e81 m3 at 0.1 atom/m3 = 1.7e80 atoms

Photons/second = ?.?e?? x 31.536e6 = ??.??e???/year

*~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How does this data contribute to our understanding?
How do we know how to interpret it?

Mitch Raemsch

According to the Zionist Nazis and their rabbi Saul Levy, nothing has
ever changed from the very beginning of cosmic BB time. and nothing
cosmic bad will ever happen to us as long as our noses remain
sufficiently mainstream brown and our bank accounts empty.

However, most of what we need to learn about Eden as well as our solar
system, galaxy and universe is accessible in the form of photons,
though mostly it's of them photons we can't see.

The trick is in the subjective observationology phase, of deductively
interpreting the best we can, and above all never being unwilling or
too afraid to revise our past interpretations for the greater good.

Eventually physical probes can finish nailing whatever coffins shut,
but until then it's up to our best subjective observationology to
figure out whatever's most likely, and to subsequently act or at least
react appropriately.

-

On average there's trillions upon trillions of new photons per second
being continually created and radiated from within each and every
cubic light year, go figure the amount of cosmic data that should be
nearly endlessly available per any given cubic light year/sec, or for
that matter per given m3/sec.

One cubic light year = 8.467e47 m3
Volume of our expanding universe = 2e33 x 8.467e47 = 16.934e80 m3
Atoms within our universe of 1.7e81 m3 at 0.1 atom/m3 = 1.7e80 atoms

Our sun supposedly radiates 1~2e45 (all inclusive) photons/sec, plus
whatever gravitons.

Supposedly we have 1e24 significant photon emitting stars within this
mostly forever expanding universe of ours (many of them, perhaps more
than half, are red dwatfs), and that’s roughly more than 0.5 star per
cubic light year, with more stars being created on the fly, so to
speak, not to mention trillions upon trillions of other physical
interactions taking place throughout our universe that can’t but help
generate photons of their own at any given time, plus there are
unavoidably secondary/recoil photons and thereby third, forth and so
on generations of those kinds of pesky photons to contemplate, and yet
the mass of this universe remains unchanged.

Universe photons/year = ?.?e?? x 31.536e6 = ??.???e??? photons/year

Photons per universe/yr = (1e25 x 1e45) x 31.536e6 = 3.15e77

Per given billion years makes that worth 3.15e86 photons

Per 100 billion years = 3.15e87 photons, and so forth.

In other words, it can safely said there are far more photons than
atoms, especially if you’d care to include photons coexisting within
physical matter.

~ BG

On average there's trillions upon trillions upon trillions of new
photons per second being continually created and radiated from within
each and every cubic light year, go figure as to the amount of cosmic
data that should be endlessly available per any given cubic light year/
sec, or for that matter per given m3/sec.

One cubic light year = 8.467e47 m3
Volume of our expanding universe = 2e33 x 8.467e47 = 16.934e80 m3
Atoms within our universe of 1.7e81 m3 at 0.1 atom/m3 = 1.7e80 atoms

Our passive sun supposedly radiates 1~2e45 (all inclusive) photons/
sec, plus whatever mystery gravitons.

(update/correction) Supposedly we have 2e24 significant photon
emitting stars within this mostly forever expanding universe of ours
(many of them, perhaps more than half, are red dwarfs), and that’s
suggesting roughly more than 1e-9 star per cubic light year, with more
stars being created on the fly, so to speak, not to mention trillions
upon trillions upon trillions of other physical interactions taking
place throughout our universe that can’t but help generate photons of
their own at any given time, plus there are unavoidably secondary/
recoil photons and thereby third, forth and so on generations of those
kinds of pesky photons to contemplate, and yet the mass and energy of
this universe remains essentially unchanged. For the moment, I’ll use
a conservative 1e25 stars of an average 1e45 photons/sec.

Universe photons/year = ?.?e?? x 31.536e6 = ??.???e??? photons/year

Photons per universe/yr = (1e25 x 1e45) x 31.536e6 = 3.15e77

Per given billion years makes that tally worth 3.15e86 photons

Per 100 billion years = 3.15e87 photons, and so forth.

In other words, it can be safely said there has been and stall always
be far more photons than atoms, especially if you’d care to include
those quantum photons coexisting within all forms of physical matter.
The relatively recent and sudden creation of the absolutely vibrant
and extremely active Sirius star/solar system of 12+ solar mass
evolving right next door if not on top of us, so to speak, would have
been a darn good example of where such observationology of photons
would have been very insightful, especially from the photons we can’t
see.

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

BURT wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:54 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:23 pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye
Hohohohohooo... right you are, Brad ol' chap... hohohoho
With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

We have functioning imaging systems from about 40MHz MRAO (radio
astronomy aperture synthesis) right up to hard X-rays with Chandra.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes/clfst/
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2008/crab/

There was until recently a gap in the Terahertz band where sensors were
not available, but new designer materials now solve that problem. They
are also rather good for seeing explosives hidden under clothes.

I have seen the first Cass A SNR image made in the Terahertz band, but
AFAIK it is not presently available on the internet.

The limitations for ground based observation are that the sky must be
transparent and there must not be too much terrestrial noise. Outside
the atmosphere hard UV and other exotic wavebands are accessible.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Apr 14, 2:16*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
BURT wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:54 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:23 pm, Iordani wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
There’s more to creating a solar system than meets the eye
Hohohohohooo... right you are, *Brad ol' chap... hohohoho
With new and improved observations of greatly extended dynamic range,
that now includes the UV and IR spectrums, as well as composites
offering the X-ray and gamma obtained pixels, in which case our
evolutionary deficient eyes can see and deductively interpret via
artificially colorized spectrums of what had been previously
invisible.

Those nifty radar obtained images of the hot surface of Venus are just
further observationology icing on the cake, so to speak.

Too bad we still do not have any platform of science and astronomy
instruments parked within the Earth-moon L1 (Selene-L1).

*~ BG

What is the limit to the data we can detect?

We have functioning imaging systems from about 40MHz MRAO (radio
astronomy aperture synthesis) right up to hard X-rays with Chandra.

http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/telescopes...oto/2008/crab/

There was until recently a gap in the Terahertz band where sensors were
not available, but new designer materials now solve that problem. They
are also rather good for seeing explosives hidden under clothes.

I have seen the first Cass A SNR image made in the Terahertz band, but
AFAIK it is not presently available on the internet.

The limitations for ground based observation are that the sky must be
transparent and there must not be too much terrestrial noise. Outside
the atmosphere hard UV and other exotic wavebands are accessible.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Too bad our nearby Selene L1 is still so unusually taboo/nondisclosure
rated.

Wonder what's going to happen when India and/or China set up their
science instrument platforms and military outpost/gateway within
Selene L1?

~ BG

On Apr 7, 1:20*am, BURT wrote:
How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?

How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?

There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
for the order of the solar system we now see?

Nobody can do it. And never will.

Mitch Raemsch


Just because we can't explain it completely now, doesn't mean that we
will be ignorant forever (well, perhaps you will, but that's by
choice).

-RFH

"Any sufficiently advanced technology or science at a given point in
time is indistinguishable from magic"