Why can’t our solar system escape the Sirius grip?
Brad Guth
Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended by Andromeda, because
everything out there (including rogue intergalactic stuff) is in
orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great Attractor” as a
cosmic wormhole. It’s simply impossible to remain as isolated and
independently rogue forever, because sooner or later something else
gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and trajectories get
unavoidably revised, including captured being within the many
possibilities.
Contributor “palsing” tells us:
“Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
solar system being captured by Sirius, because to me it honestly
doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, and the fact that we’re still not
headed away from Sirius, plus there’s simply no telling where that
Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become sufficient escape velocity with
the current reduced mass and sufficient distance, although all things
Sirius didn’t always represent such little influence.
With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should have to suggest a fair
number of rogue planets exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9 WDs
within our galaxy that were initially of equal or greater mass than
our sun, and if given on average only one surviving planet per WD is a
whopping 30e9 rogue planets (some w/moons) that had to go somewhere.
I would have to think the average number of surviving planets is
something more like 2 or 3 per WD, and our latest IR spectrum
telescopes should manage to detect those as large or larger than Venus
which so happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though even Earth at 128 mw/m2
shouldn’t be all that invisible, although the heat flow from our
physically dark moon at perhaps 8<16 mw/m2 could be tough to detect,
especially if its thick crust were to become icy (say covered by 64 km
of ice and carbon buckyballs) should manage to further insulate and
keep that average heat flux well below 10 mw/m2, which is still
relatively hot compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps offering at
most 0.1 mw/m2 (including IR & UV).
Apparently there’s also a few black holes of <1e9 Ms going rogue,
headed away from their galactic core which likely had multiple ultra
massive <1e10 Ms BHs interacting, so perhaps these too are dragging a
few spare solar systems along for the intergalactic ride, and there’s
no telling where those items will eventually end up. I can imagine
that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could manage to spare and thus shed
multiple rogue BHs that have been on their way to becoming either pup-
galaxies of their own, or should eventually merge with whatever is in
their path. For all we know, Andromeda has tossed a few of those BH
suckers on way.
Not to continually nitpick this capture thing, however, besides our
reddish icy Sedna that’s not going away, there’s also the likes of
2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter, as perhaps worth
at most 1.5e18 kg that’s still hanging with us all the way out to
2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s offering a pathetic tidal radii gravity
binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and obviously even it is not going
away from our solar system's tidal radii grip. It seems this is
representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as got the Sirius grip as
having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention
that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically down-sized
mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as
any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
That original mass ratio as offering a gravity binding force and
subsequent tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have
something near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work
with, and there’s still no objective way of telling how close we
actually were to begin with.
Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
expected.
For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
the previous 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
down, or a thousand years if constant at the same starting velocity.
The average cloud density that needs to include those terrific stellar
CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps exceeding 1e6/
cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME stuff to
start off with.
In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
years after those new stars started pushing away their remainder/
surplus volume of molecular/nebula mass, the radii will have increased
by only 6.4e4 ly (with us pretty much situated dead center), and when
given 260 million years offers 16.64e6 ly as long as the exit velocity
remained unchanged. However, at most the Sirius molecular cloud radii
has likely expanded something less than a million light years out, and
never the less we’re situated pretty much dead center within that
expanding molecular/nebua sphere that’s probably making the exact same
red-shifted noise as the CMBR.
At 64 ly to start off with (as if our solar system were situated
initially just outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud),
whereas that’s only looking at our receiving a thousand fold more
proton density and traumatized by roughly 32 times the average solar
CME velocity that our own sun tosses at us, and I’d bet that it’s also
at the very least twice as hot and kept UV saturated as well as
representing a sustained molecular interaction that’s going to affect
our terrestrial environment for a good thousand years.
Perhaps by the time that molecular/nebula cloud doubles its first
radii (2r and 2500 years from the initial stellar fusion kickoff) the
molecular exit velocity will have subsided down to the dull roar of
roughly half of its initial 1r shockwave velocity that took roughly
the first thousand years to initially accomplish, and at 4r could
become half that of the 2r exit velocity due to the core and other
half (1.5e37 kg) portion of molecular/nebula as gravity that’s
directly behind and always working as an unfocused weak force against
cloud expansion, as well as the initial stellar fusion backing off.
This method might suggest as little as having 10000 km/sec available
at 2r, then falling off to 5000 km/sec at 4r, 2500 km/sec at 8r and
only 312 km/sec at 64r (4096 ly).
I’ll likely have to further research and run through these numbers a
few more times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit what I’d
like to interpret, but you should at least get the basic gist of what
this means and the implications as to this nearby event and subsequent
cosmic evolution having affected our local environment, starting as of
roughly 260 million years ago.
In other words, it’s probably not a coincidence of random happenstance
that Sirius emerged and UV illuminated us at roughly the exact same
time as our global environment and a few other considerations about
our solar system changed forever. There’s even a good chance that the
terrific Sirius UV illumination was for a time every bit as great as
that of what our sun was providing.
Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the
mainstream status-quo day, because even at 1024 light years requires
20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order to stay clear of being influenced
by any such 3e37 kg mass of a molecular/nebula cloud. Of course that
also requires that we’re either running at least parallel or much less
not heading into it or being overtaken. Gee whiz, as is what could
possibly go wrong?
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
distance, especially when our galactic mass is added into the formula,
which of course only works to our advantage if we’re not headed
towards or being overtaken, because the closer we get the greater that
escape velocity requirement becomes. So, if we don’t get nailed by
Andromeda on this pass, sure thing the next time around isn’t going to
be so lucky.
In the case of Sirius, the available mass is hardly worth anything
compared to what it started out as <3e37 kg, so we’re gradually losing
our orbital attachment or capture by Sirius, and that’s a very good
thing unless you’re into perpetual doom and gloom predictions.
~ BG
Brad Guth
As a terrific molecular/nebula cloud creates a fast burning star that
goes from bad to worse in a relatively short period of time, emulating
a soft/slow nova as it quickly consumes itself, as well as getting rid
of mass as it converts from its red supergiant phase into the
remainder as a white dwarf, is when having more than a few light years
separation is a seriously good idea, as well as your planet having a
thick/robust atmosphere is going to come in real handy.
Sirius(B) of roughly 260 million years old, is likely classified as a
medium-large white dwarf, as having converted or main sequenced itself
down from >8.5 Ms (possibly 9+). There are apparently a few extremely
large supernovas like “SN 2007if” suggesting an extra-massive white
dwarf had exceed 2 Ms, and those sorts of Wolf Rayet stars might have
started out as worth 16<32 Ms. Supposedly anything as small and >1.44
Ms is supposed to become a neutron star that should remain stable, so
it’s somewhat uncertain what happened.
SN 2007if offers further speculation of a possible binary or as
having rogue white dwarfs combining into creating a supernova, forming
into what otherwise requires a WD of 2.1 Ms. Possibly the Wolf Rayet
star that likely started off as a 30 Ms will become a maximum unstable
WD of <2 Ms.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/03/mystery-of-how-white-dwarf-star-system-could-exceed-mass-limit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%E2%80%93Rayet_star
The likes of Wolf Rayet (WR-124/M1-67) can’t be very old, as perhaps
only worth a few million years, possibly as young as 2.5e6 years (a
tenth the age of Sirius), and thus when given 3e6 years as having to
lose <5.3e14 tonnes/sec is going to sustain a considerable solar wind
and packing enough density that’ll affect most anything within several
light years.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/astronomy/wolraysta.html
Some WR stars start off as worth <100 Ms, which sort of makes
Sirius(B) as having been kind of a pup version at ~9 Ms and perhaps
triggered towards the end by consuming Sirius(C). As long as
Sirius(B) never merges with Sirius(A), we got nothing to worry about.
Our sun most likely started off as worth <2.6e30 kg and having lost on
average ~4e12 kg/sec (obviously there was more initial loss/sec, and
it’s an ongoing process that’s as of lately running at somewhat less
than losing 3e12 kg/sec, could even be as little as 1e12 kg/sec). Our
eventual white dwarf will likely become the size of Mars, as somewhat
less than medium sized at 0.25<.33 Ms (possibly ending as great as .5
Ms).
Just to give us some better idea about this. If our sun were having
to lose another 1.5e30 kg within the next 5 billion years requires an
average loss of 9.5e12 kg/sec. Obviously the red giant phase and the
final demise of converting into a white dwarf is when the vast bulk of
stellar mass has to be let go. The exact same thing happened for
Sirius(B), except much worse because of its original mass and the much
shorter timeline.
Mainstream published astronomy and K-12 taught astrophysics would
suggest that our sun is currently losing at most only 4e9 kg/sec,
however at that passive rate it’ll take 4.5 trillion years to
sufficiently deplete itself in order to turn into a red giant before
ever becoming the 0.25<.5 Ms white dwarf, and most of us realize that
main sequence process is not going to take nearly that much time.
However, perhaps using the stellar mass loss average of <4e9 tonnes/
sec should work about right, or at the very conservative least using
the average mass reduction of 3e9 tonnes/sec should not be excluded.
Either way, it’s looking as though our Sirius(B) was originally worth
at least 8.5<9.5 Ms, as well as having to lose an average 2.5e12
tonnes/sec, and its dynamic outflux at the red supergiant end of its
accelerated main sequence phase that was about to convert into a
stable WD, likely started off with those helium flashover solar winds
of nearly 20000 km/s, which likely simmered down to something less
than a dull roar of perhaps as little as 2000 km/sec by the time such
winds interacted with our nearby solar system, and most likely what
helped to blow away whatever surviving planets that had already been
released from their original Sirius gravity binding capture, because
there’s no way any star as having been reduced to 1/8th mass is ever
going to keep its planets.
With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should suggest a fair number of
rogue planets must exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9 WDs within
our galaxy, and if given only one surviving planet per WD is 30e9
rogue planets that had to go somewhere. When our sun ends as a white
dwarf, there well be at least 6 planets plus all the other stuff set
free, and because our sun is below average seems to suggest that our
galaxy likely has at least 1e11 rogue items available, and that number
could even be as great as 1e12 if we included all significant items of
Ceres or larger.
The latest James Webb Space Telescope that’s capable of doing an
extensive IR survey should help spot and catalog these rogue and
relatively cool galactic items, as well as those rogue intergalactic
items that got pulled out by an escaping massive enough star or black
hole. With a good supercomputer and loads of trajectory data, orbital
simulations should be capable of suggesting where certain rogue items
(including clouds of relatively cool molecular/nebula mass) well end
up.
Brad Guth Usenet, Blog and Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Mark Earnest
If everything has to be in orbit, all we would have by now would be
multiple
stars and multiple galaxies. We're in orbit around the hub of the
galaxy,
isn't that enough? And galaxies just all fly away from one another!
Collision course with Andromeda?
I never heard of such a thing.
And if certain scientists are worried about this, they must
plan on living a long, long time.
Brad Guth
accomplished, especially when it was worth so much extra mass (<1.9e31
kg for Sirius[B] and perhaps <2.6e31 for the whole package deal plus
the other 3e37 kg as of 260+ million years ago) to begin with, and
further compromised and/or compounded by us having been moving towards
that badly depleted but still terrific mass at 7.6 km/sec rather than
away (not that there’s any objective science telling us exactly where
those Sirius stars and their original molecular/nebula cloud were to
begin with, as most likely contributed from a rogue molecular/nebula
cloud derived from a galactic merger).
Just another related thought; Perhaps the theory of a supernova event
that gave our sun its initial kick-start is similar to what also
transpired on behalf of boosting those impressive Sirius stars to life
as of perhaps 260+ million years ago.
Here’s a couple of interesting links to orbital related calculations.
Lagrange Point Finder
http://www.orbitsimulator.com/formulas/LagrangePointFinder.html
Using 8.136e16 meters, 7e30 kg and 2e30 kg
The L4/L5 velocity is just .086 km/sec.
Perhaps the L2 of 0.128 km/sec is close to escape velocity.
At 0.1 ly (9.46e14 m) gives the L2 velocity of 1.19 km/sec
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
at 8.6 ly the escape velocity from 7e30 kg = 0.107167 km/sec
at .1 ly (9.46e11 km) the escape velocity from Sirius only climbs to
1 km/sec, but neither of these examples were taking into account the
added gravity pull of our solar system, any barycenter or elliptical
considerations, much less the original molecular/nebula mass of <3e37
kg. Adding such original and combined mass into the calculation, and
the results are impressive.
Thus far the required escape velocity from Sirius as is doesn’t seem
so terribly great, so why exactly is our solar system got us seemingly
headed back towards that sucker at 7.6 km/sec?
Our little solar system mass certainly can’t affect that of any
molecular/nebula mass of 3e37 kg, not even if we were flying directly
through it, although it would most certainly affect us.
Even at a spread of 1000 ly and using the conservative 2.5e37 kg,
we’re looking at an exit/escape velocity of 18.8 km/sec required in
order that our solar system avoid that amount of molecular/nebula
gravitational tidal radii grip. Problem is, at least as of lately and
for as long as anyone can figure, it seems we’ve been headed the wrong
way, as well as violating the Alan Guth golden cosmic rule of a
forever expanding universe (perhaps similar to those Great Wall and
Great Attractor violations).
If we always had a purely linear -7.6 km/sec closing velocity to deal
with, and backtracked 260 million years of using that constant
velocity without any radial trajectory deviations, this only adds up
to 6596 ly plus our existing 8.6 ly. = 6604.6 ly, and at that
separation would require 7.31 km/sec escape velocity (escape meaning
as per our moving parallel or away from and otherwise not as headed
towards that original molecular/nebula cloud maximum of <3e37 kg
that’ll require 8 km/sec in order to escape at such a maximum
distance).
As you get closer to a given mass, be it terrific stars like Sirius(B)
or worse being its original molecular/nebula cloud that represented
better than 4.25 million fold greater mass than it’s current worth,
whereas obviously that escape velocity requirement goes through the
roof, so to speak.
As we close in on the existing depleted mass of the Sirius star
system(<7e30 kg), at some point the closing velocity of our elliptical
path should increase (such as right about now), just like those
elliptical treks of Sedna and any other Oort cloud items that always
manage to stick with us, and otherwise like many comets that do not
maintain a constant velocity throughout their extended radial elliptic
trajectory. Sedna that’s currently at 89 AU is likely moving a few
percent faster than at 900+AU, suggesting that our negative radial
trajectory velocity with Sirius should have been on the increase,
which is most always a darn good thing for insuring sufficient escape
velocity.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/43ancients/02files/Sedna_01.html
Where’s the fully 3D interactive multi-body orbital simulation of
stellar proper motions that’ll work this rogue analogy of Sirius and
that of our captured solar system from the full elliptical trajectory
and barycenter point of view?
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
Brad Guth
>
> If everything has to be in orbit, all we would have by now would be
> multiple
> stars and multiple galaxies. We're in orbit around the hub of the
> galaxy,
> isn't that enough? And galaxies just all fly away from one another!
>
> Collision course with Andromeda?
> I never heard of such a thing.
> And if certain scientists are worried about this, they must
> plan on living a long, long time.
It's always fun to pretend that we are at the center of the Semitic
faith-based approved universe, that's only and always forever
expanding away from us. I'm certain that Alan Guth and any number of
other mainstream closed mindsets would have agree with you, or else.
Do you have some objective science suggesting that galaxies do not
actually interact with one another?
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Our sun is not gravitationally bound to any other star.
Brad Guth
> Our sun is not gravitationally bound to any other star.
I gave you all 5 gold stars for being our resident village idiot, not
that it's sufficient to compensate for your topic/author stalking
policy that gave me just one gold star.
Apparently my topic represents a sufficient threat, enough to put your
mainstream group of perpetual naysayers and obfuscation expertise at
risk. Obviously if you had any 3D simulation of orbital mechanics
that could prove me wrong, you would have utilized such.
Better luck next time.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Newton's laws, coupled with Doppler based radial velocity measurements
to other stars rule out that the Sun is in a closed orbit (bound to)
with any other star. That's an observable, Brad.
hanson
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:...
> Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Samwrote:
Our sun is not gravitationally bound to any other star.
Brad wrote:
I gave you all 5 gold stars for being our resident village idiot, not
that it's sufficient to compensate for your topic/author stalking
policy that gave me just one gold star.
Apparently my topic represents a sufficient threat, enough to put your
mainstream group of perpetual naysayers and obfuscation expertise at
risk. Obviously if you had any 3D simulation of orbital mechanics
that could prove me wrong, you would have utilized such.
Better luck next time.
>
hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... ahahahaha... Perhaps you have a point,
somewhere, Brad. But overriding such a point is that
Sam made you crank yourself, and grievously so at that.
If your village idiot can do such emotional damage to you
think about the havoc & mayhem that your Zio-Nazis may
bestow onto you. Thanks for the laughs, though, Brad...
ahahahaha... ahahanson
Mark Earnest
All I have is interactive thinking. Science can't even get us out of
Earth orbit 41 years after landing a man on the Moon.
Sam Wormley
> All I have is interactive thinking. Science can't even get us out of
> Earth orbit 41 years after landing a man on the Moon.
Don't discount the probes on the way to Pluto and Mercury.
Mark Earnest
Well that's a little better than nothing. But if science were all it
were
cracked up to be, we would already be sending explorer astronauts to
the nearby
stars, finding earthlike planets, and establishing technology trade
with the natives. And we'd all be being served by robots.
And science still can't even find a low cost way to get things into
orbit!
palsing
>... But if science were all it
> were
> cracked up to be, we would already be sending explorer astronauts to
> the nearby
> stars, finding earthlike planets, and establishing technology trade
> with the natives....
Clearly the mind-blowing vastness of space eludes you... better do
some reading...
\Paul A
Mark Earnest
Doesn't elude me at all. It eludes you.
Brad Guth
I can't even confirm other than unmanned landing on the moon, but
otherwise going around and around Earth millions of times seems to be
where the most public finding is, because we can't even seem to get
another mission off to visit the planet Venus that gets to within 100
LD every 19 months, and you already know what I think is there that's
worth a closer look-see.
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
Brad Guth
That's only because they don't pay any attention to folks like William
Mook (not that he's always right).
~ BG
Brad Guth
The planet Venus isn't vast, but have it your way if it makes you a
happy camper.
Brad Guth
So, run off some of those 3D interactive simulations and lets have
some fun, by showing how right you are and how impossible captures
supposedly are.
You are aware that Hubble and many other observations show us captured
galaxies and loads galactic interactions, but for the moment we can
just pretend those are all bogus PhotoShop images.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Brad Guth
Is our sun the only independent star that's isolated as rogue and all
alone?
And your faith-based approved and politically correct computer
simulations are where?
~ BG
Hagar
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51476ce1-8679-49c5...@l8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
*************************************
Nobody ever said that, you marvel of modern stupidity ... Galaxies will
collide and form new and larger ones, as well as cannibalize smaller ones.
However, Solar Systems are pretty much in lockstep with the Spiral Arm they
inhabit. A loose cannon rogue Star may cause some disturbance if it has
several solar masses and get within, say, 2 or 3 light-years ... but alas,
your wet dream of interaction with Sirius is just that ... midnight GuthBall
sperm emission..
Sam Wormley
Many stars are in multiple star system, but our sun is in the
minority (about 40%) being an unbound star. Sirius A and B
are bound together in closed Keplerian orbits, so are
Procyon A and B, and so on. These are thing you should have
learned in school, Brad.
Sam Wormley
> Nobody ever said that, you marvel of modern stupidity ... Galaxies will
> collide and form new and larger ones, as well as cannibalize smaller ones.
> However, Solar Systems are pretty much in lockstep with the Spiral Arm they
> inhabit. A loose cannon rogue Star may cause some disturbance if it has
> several solar masses and get within, say, 2 or 3 light-years ... but alas,
> your wet dream of interaction with Sirius is just that ... midnight GuthBall
> sperm emission..
Nope 2-3 light years is orders of magnitude too far away. Do the Math.
F = G M1 M2 / r^2
That r^2 at 2-3 light years, renders the Force, F, mighty small. Do
the math, Hagar, and see how horribly small the force is.
Brad Guth
That's a good one.
You're saying that 40% of stars are rogue/unbound?
If 40% are unbound, what's keeping our galaxy glued together.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
In other words, you still have no such simulation supporting your
faith-based interpretation. Figures.
~ BG
jwarner1
Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 12, 1:49 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Our sun is not gravitationally bound to any other star.
>
> I gave you all 5 gold stars for being our resident village idiot, not
> that it's sufficient to compensate for your topic/author stalking
> policy that gave me just one gold star.
nope - you are the group eggplant.
palsing
> That's a good one.
> You're saying that 40% of stars are rogue/unbound?
>
> If 40% are unbound, what's keeping our galaxy glued together.
Well, 'rogue' and 'unbound' are NOT synonyms, no matter what you
think. That is why I asked you for your definition of 'rogue'.
In this case, 'unbound' is used to indicate that a star is single, and
not bound to another, that is, it is not in a binary system. Just
because a star is 'unbound' does not mean that it doesn't fall under
the gravitational influence of every other star in the galaxy; after
all, it is the mutual attraction that keeps everything going 'round
and 'round. Used in a slightly different sense, a large majority of
the stuff in the galaxy is 'bound' to the galaxy, although there are
rare exceptions.
\Paul A
Brad Guth
In this universe, everything orbits something.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
"Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
orbital eccentricity < 1. For eccentricity > 1, i.e., hyperbolic
orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
they have gravitational influence on each other.
Brad Guth
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
Is there really any doubt as to what sort of gravitational influence a
3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
solar system?
Try to remember that unless there were gravity seeds or nearby
supernova compressions, it was likely a million years before those
Sirius stars managed to evolve and blow it away. Even a 1e37 kg mass
can't be all that insignificant when you're parked right next to it,
or even a little into it.
Escape Velocity (did we always have enough escape velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Are you still suggesting that captures are impossible? (team Keck,
Hubble and most others might not agree with that analogy)
What small percentage of our galaxy has been captured by something
that’s more massive? (would you care to believe at least 99.9%?)
On a local solar system bases, what percentage of items have been
captured as opposed to having existed or created as is from the very
get-go?
~ BG
Brad Guth
"Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
orbital eccentricity < 1. For eccentricity > 1, i.e., hyperbolic
orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
though they have gravitational influence on each other.
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
doesn’t seem as though our solar system has ever managed to entirely
escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
stars. The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit
is what I believe we’re still dealing with, and is there really any
doubt as to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a
3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
solar system?
Try to remember, unless there were preexisting gravity seeds or
causations via nearby supernova compressions, it was likely a good
million some odd years before those Sirius stars managed to emerge and
blow all else away. Even a 1e37 kg molecular/nebula mass can't be all
that insignificant when you're parked right next to it, or even a
little into it, and only worse yet if our trajectory were less than
parallel and closing in.
Escape Velocity (did we always have enough escape velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Are you still suggesting that captures are impossible? (because team
Keck, Hubble and most others might not agree with that analogy or
interpretation of yours)
What small percentage of our galaxy has been captured by something
that’s more massive? (if there were only those black holes to begin
with, would you care to believe at least 99.9%?)
On a local solar system bases; what percentage of items have been
captured as opposed to having existed or created as is from the very
get-go?
Most faith-based and politically correct mindsets want to insist that
everything stays exactly the same, as well as insisting that their
singular Big Bang represents that nothing ever interacts with anything
else or much less ever gets reincarnated or reformulated as another
comparable solar system, much less hosting Eden like planets suitable
for naked Goldilocks inhabitants.
However, a properly outfitted Goldilocks of some technical expertise
actually has a wide range of planets and moons to explore and even
habitat, and with only minimal space travel or directed panspermia
capability that’s similar to ours, means that there’s no telling how
many Goldilocks inhabited planets and moons are out there, or even
those existing within our solar system. For all we know, at least
part of our global biodiversity was likely imported or seeded by other
Goldilock ETs, rather than purely by random happenstance and/or
limited as to purely terrestrial evolution.
~ BG
On Oct 12, 12:32 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps our solar system could not avoid Sirius any better than our
> Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended by Andromeda, because
> everything out there (including rogue intergalactic stuff) is in
> orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great Attractor” as a
> cosmic wormhole. It’s simply impossible to remain as isolated and
> independently rogue forever, because sooner or later something else
> gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and trajectories get
> unavoidably revised, including captured being within the many
> possibilities.
>
> Contributor “palsing” tells us:
> “Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
> after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
> between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
>
> We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
> solar system being captured by Sirius, because to me it honestly
> doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
> have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
> molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, plus there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become sufficient escape velocity with
> the current reduced mass and sufficient distance, although all things
> Sirius didn’t always represent such little influence.
>
> With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should have to suggest a fair
> number of rogue planets exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9 WDs
> within our galaxy that were initially of equal or greater mass than
> our sun, and if given on average only one surviving planet per WD is a
> whopping 30e9 rogue planets (some w/moons) that had to go somewhere.
> I would have to think the average number of surviving planets is
> something more like 2 or 3 per WD, and our latest IR spectrum
> telescopes should manage to detect those as large or larger than Venus
> which so happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though even Earth at 128 mw/m2
> shouldn’t be all that invisible, although the heat flow from our
> physically dark moon at perhaps 8<16 mw/m2 could be tough to detect,
> especially if its thick crust were to become icy (say covered by 64 km
> of ice and carbon buckyballs) should manage to further insulate and
> keep that average heat flux well below 10 mw/m2, which is still
> relatively hot compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps offering at
> most 0.1 mw/m2 (including IR & UV).
>
> Apparently there’s also a few black holes of <1e9 Ms going rogue,
> headed away from their galactic core which likely had multiple ultra
> massive <1e10 Ms BHs interacting, so perhaps these too are dragging a
> few spare solar systems along for the intergalactic ride, and there’s
> no telling where those items will eventually end up. I can imagine
> that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could manage to spare and thus shed
> multiple rogue BHs that have been on their way to becoming either pup-
> galaxies of their own, or should eventually merge with whatever is in
> their path. For all we know, Andromeda has tossed a few of those BH
> suckers on way.
>
> Not to continually nitpick this capture thing, however, besides our
> reddish icy Sedna that’s not going away, there’s also the likes of
> 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter, as perhaps worth
> at most 1.5e18 kg that’s still hanging with us all the way out to
> 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s offering a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and obviously even it is not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip. It seems this is
> representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as got the Sirius grip as
> having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention
> that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically down-sized
> mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as
> any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That original mass ratio as offering a gravity binding force and
> subsequent tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have
> something near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work
> with, and there’s still no objective way of telling how close we
> actually were to begin with.
>
> Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
> Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
> doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
> too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
> the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
> subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
> expected.
>
> For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
> birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
> had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
> volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
> require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
> worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
> the previous 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
>
> In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
> velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
> down, or a thousand years if constant at the same starting velocity.
> The average cloud density that needs to include those terrific stellar
> CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps exceeding 1e6/
> cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME stuff to
> start off with.
>
> In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
> years after those new stars started pushing away their remainder/
> surplus volume of molecular/nebula mass, the radii will have increased
> by only 6.4e4 ly (with us pretty much situated dead center), and when
> given 260 million years offers 16.64e6 ly as long as the exit velocity
> remained unchanged. However, at most the Sirius molecular cloud radii
> has likely expanded something less than a million light years out, and
> never the less we’re situated pretty much dead center within that
> expanding molecular/nebua sphere that’s probably making the exact same
> red-shifted noise as the CMBR.
>
> At 64 ly to start off with (as if our solar system were situated
> initially just outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud),
> whereas that’s only looking at our receiving a thousand fold more
> proton density and traumatized by roughly 32 times the average solar
> CME velocity that our own sun tosses at us, and I’d bet that it’s also
> at the very least twice as hot and kept UV saturated as well as
> representing a sustained molecular interaction that’s going to affect
> our terrestrial environment for a good thousand years.
>
> Perhaps by the time that molecular/nebula cloud doubles its first
> radii (2r and 2500 years from the initial stellar fusion kickoff) the
> molecular exit velocity will have subsided down to the dull roar of
> roughly half of its initial 1r shockwave velocity that took roughly
> the first thousand years to initially accomplish, and at 4r could
> become half that of the 2r exit velocity due to the core and other
> half (1.5e37 kg) portion of molecular/nebula as gravity that’s
> directly behind and always working as an unfocused weak force against
> cloud expansion, as well as the initial stellar fusion backing off.
> This method might suggest as little as having 10000 km/sec available
> at 2r, then falling off to 5000 km/sec at 4r, 2500 km/sec at 8r and
> only 312 km/sec at 64r (4096 ly).
>
> I’ll likely have to further research and run through these numbers a
> few more times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit what I’d
> like to interpret, but you should at least get the basic gist of what
> this means and the implications as to this nearby event and subsequent
> cosmic evolution having affected our local environment, starting as of
> roughly 260 million years ago.
>
> In other words, it’s probably not a coincidence of random happenstance
> that Sirius emerged and UV illuminated us at roughly the exact same
> time as our global environment and a few other considerations about
> our solar system changed forever. There’s even a good chance that the
> terrific Sirius UV illumination was for a time every bit as great as
> that of what our sun was providing.
>
> Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the
> mainstream status-quo day, because even at 1024 light years requires
> 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order to stay clear of being influenced
> by any such 3e37 kg mass of a molecular/nebula cloud. Of course that
> also requires that we’re either running at least parallel or much less
> not heading into it or being overtaken. Gee whiz, as is what could
> possibly go wrong?
>
> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
>
> The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
> will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
> distance, especially when our galactic mass is added into the formula,
> which of course only works to our advantage if we’re not headed
> towards or being overtaken, because the closer we get the greater that
> escape velocity requirement becomes. So, if we don’t get nailed by
> Andromeda on this pass, sure thing the next time around isn’t going to
> be so lucky.
>
> In the case of Sirius, the available mass is hardly worth anything
> compared to what it started out as <3e37 kg, so we’re gradually losing
> our orbital attachment or capture by Sirius, and that’s a very good
> thing unless you’re into perpetual doom and gloom predictions.
>
> ~ BG
Brad Guth
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> doesn�t seem as though our solar system has ever managed to entirely
> escape, unless it�s just recently getting to that point because of the
> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
> stars.
The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
Sam Wormley
> Sam Wormley:
> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
> though they have gravitational influence on each other.
>
> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> escape, unless it�s just recently getting to that point because of the
> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
> stars. The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit
> doubt as to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a
> 3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
> solar system?
>
>
The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
Brad Guth
> On 10/13/10 1:13 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sam Wormley:
> > "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
> > orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
> > orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
> > though they have gravitational influence on each other.
>
> > Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> > Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> > escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
> > great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
> > to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
> > stars. The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit
> > doubt as to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a
> > 3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
> > solar system?
>
> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
Good for you. Now explain everything else I've asked for.
~ BG
Brad Guth
"Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
orbital eccentricity < 1. For eccentricity > 1, i.e., hyperbolic
orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
though they have gravitational influence on each other.
: The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
: any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words to go
along with your faith-based approved denial and obfuscation policy.
Too bad you and others still can’t muster up any 3D interactive
orbital simulations for us.
Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
doesn’t seem as though our solar system has ever managed to entirely
escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
stars. The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit
is what I believe we’re still dealing with, and is there really any
doubt as to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a
3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
solar system?
Try to remember, unless there were preexisting gravity seeds or
external causations via nearby supernova compressions, it was likely a
good million some odd years before those Sirius stars managed to
emerge and blow all else away. Even a 1e37 kg molecular/nebula mass
can't be all that insignificant when you're parked right next to it,
or even a little into it, and only worse yet if our trajectory were
less than parallel and closing in.
Escape Velocity (did we always have enough escape velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Are you still suggesting that captures are impossible? (because team
Keck, Hubble and most others might not agree with that analogy or
interpretation of yours)
What small percentage of our galaxy has been captured by something
that’s more massive? (if there were only those black holes to begin
with, would you care to believe at least 99.9%?)
On a local solar system limited bases; what percentage of items have
been captured as opposed to having existed or created as is from the
very get-go?
Most faith-based and politically correct mindsets want to insist that
everything stays exactly the same, as well as insisting that their
singular Big Bang and its forever expansion represents that nothing
ever interacts with anything else or much less ever gets reincarnated
or reformulated as another comparable solar system, much less hosting
Eden like planets suitable for naked Goldilocks inhabitants.
However, a properly outfitted tribe of Goldilocks with some technical
expertise actually has a wide range of planets and moons to explore
and even habitat, and with only minimal space travel or directed
panspermia capability that’s similar to ours, means that there’s no
telling how many Goldilocks inhabited planets and moons are out there,
or even those existing within our solar system. For all we know, at
least part of our global biodiversity was likely imported or seeded by
other Goldilock ETs, rather than purely created by random happenstance
and/or limited as to purely terrestrial evolution that has more
missing gaps than Muslims having WMD.
All combined, by now there's likely more significant rogue stuff
that's Ceres or larger, than there are stars within our galaxy. As
time goes on there will be an increased number of those WDs and
therefore an increased number of rogue planets and their moons, not to
mention billions of perfectly stable red and brown dwarfs with their
own planets to pick from, and perhaps that’s just on our half of this
galaxy. Close binary stars would have tossed or sent whatever planets
packing as of long before becoming WDs, but that’s only adding to
whatever’s available as rogue items, so it seems the James Webb Space
Telescope is going to be very busy at cataloging such items.
A 10x Jupiter mother planet with moons the size of Earth would
actually be an okay option, as long as some degree of geothermal,
nuclear/thorium and local fusion energy was made available in addition
to whatever hydrocarbons.
Pick a direction, and perhaps on average there's likely a million
perfectly good options within any one degree cone. That's 129.6
billion viable planets or moons to pick from, plus whatever the other
half of our galaxy has to offer. How could there not be any possible
life elsewhere, especially when taking other galaxies into account?
This is not having to insist that other complex life populated planets
or moons have to be nearly as advanced as us, or even humanoid
populated. But honestly, how hard would it have to be for others
being a whole lot smarter than most of us?
~ BG
Hagar
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n_6dnQqpK9yilSjR...@mchsi.com...
I only used 2-3 years as a wild guess example to show GuthBall how
ridiculous it is to claim that Sirius, which is about 8 LY away, could
affect out Solar System.
The Ort cloud is still in the tenuous tug of our Sun, and its outer
sphere is almost 2 LYs distant from the Sun ...a delicate balance.
Brad Guth
> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
> >> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
> >> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
> >> they have gravitational influence on each other.
> > Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> > Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> > escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
> > great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
> > to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
> > stars.
>
> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
So, you and others of your kind were here as of 260+ million years
ago. Do tell.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
>>>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
>>>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
>>>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
>>> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>>
>>> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
>>> escape, unless it�s just recently getting to that point because of the
>>> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
>>> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
>>> stars.
>>
>> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
>> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
>
> So, you and others of your kind were here as of 260+ million years
> ago. Do tell.
>
> ~ BG
What about you, Brad? Were your here as of 260+ million years ago
at which time the Sun was, as is now, a single star system. Our
Sun has never been a double star, Brad.
Brad Guth
> On 10/13/10 3:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
> >>>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
> >>>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
> >>>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
> >>> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> >>> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> >>> escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
> >>> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
> >>> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
> >>> stars.
>
> >> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
> >> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
>
> > So, you and others of your kind were here as of 260+ million years
> > ago. Do tell.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> What about you, Brad? Were your here as of 260+ million years ago
> at which time the Sun was, as is now, a single star system. Our
> Sun has never been a double star, Brad.
Just because you keep giving me one messily gold star, and otherwise
avoiding getting into anything that could revise your mainstream faith-
based interpretation, I'm going to restart this topic and perhaps
include at least one other newsgroup that'll make you happy.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 13, 1:49 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/10 3:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
>>>>>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
>>>>>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
>>>>>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
>>>>> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>>
>>>>> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
>>>>> escape, unless it�s just recently getting to that point because of the
>>>>> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
>>>>> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
>>>>> stars.
>>
>>>> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
>>>> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
>>
>>> So, you and others of your kind were here as of 260+ million years
>>> ago. Do tell.
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> What about you, Brad? Were your here as of 260+ million years ago
>> at which time the Sun was, as is now, a single star system. Our
>> Sun has never been a double star, Brad.
>
> Just because you keep giving me one messily gold star, and otherwise
> avoiding getting into anything that could revise your mainstream faith-
> based interpretation, I'm going to restart this topic and perhaps
> include at least one other newsgroup that'll make you happy.
>
> ~ BG
I think you are not bright enough to realize that orbits are
essentially forever, Brad. Jupiter's orbit about the sun is
about 4.5 billion years old.
If the Sun ever had a binary partner, it would likely still
have it.
Michael Moroney
>> F = G M1 M2 / r^2
>>
>> That r^2 at 2-3 light years, renders the Force, F, mighty small. Do
>> the math, Hagar, and see how horribly small the force is.
>I only used 2-3 years as a wild guess example to show GuthBall how
>ridiculous it is to claim that Sirius, which is about 8 LY away, could
>affect out Solar System.
>The Ort cloud is still in the tenuous tug of our Sun, and its outer
>sphere is almost 2 LYs distant from the Sun ...a delicate balance.
FWIW, the acceleration of the solar system in the Sirius system's
gravitational field is about 6*10^-15 g (6*10^-14 m/s^2). I think it
will be quite a while before anyone notices anything happening.
The earth's influence on the sun is about 250,000 times stronger.
Hagar
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:i958i6$piv$1...@pcls6.std.com...
Once again the avid readers of this NG prove, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that Brad Guth is totally insane and obsessed with the Sirius
system. Furthermore, the idea of a planet "capturing" a Moon is
equally absurd. If you dump a jar of quarters on the floor, having
one of them land on edge has about the same odds as a planet
capturing a moon, in motion, zipping through the Solar System.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but turn out your bubble is a sphere
of total ignorance and stupidity.
Brad Guth
> On 10/13/10 3:55 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 1:49 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/10 3:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
> >>>>>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
> >>>>>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
> >>>>>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
> >>>>> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> >>>>> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> >>>>> escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
> >>>>> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
> >>>>> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
> >>>>> stars.
>
> >>>> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
> >>>> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
>
> >>> So, you and others of your kind were here as of 260+ million years
> >>> ago. Do tell.
>
> >>> ~ BG
>
> >> What about you, Brad? Were your here as of 260+ million years ago
> >> at which time the Sun was, as is now, a single star system. Our
> >> Sun has never been a double star, Brad.
>
> > Just because you keep giving me one messily gold star, and otherwise
> > avoiding getting into anything that could revise your mainstream faith-
> > based interpretation, I'm going to restart this topic and perhaps
> > include at least one other newsgroup that'll make you happy.
>
> > ~ BG
>
> I think you are not bright enough to realize that orbits are
> essentially forever, Brad. Jupiter's orbit about the sun is
> about 4.5 billion years old.
>
> If the Sun ever had a binary partner, it would likely still
> have it.
Your exclusion of any change in mass or distance is noted.
~ BG
Brad Guth
wrote:
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html
Using 7e30 kg, 2.02e30 kg and 8.6 ly, I got 9.09e-14 m/s (combined to
start with)
In other words, according to math, in another ten thousand years our
7.6 km/sec closing velocity will have become only worth a little extra
(using an average acceleration of 2.22e-13 m/s/s);
2.22e-13 * 3.6e3 * 24 * 3.65e2 * 1e4 = 7e-2 m/s
Doesn’t it matter how far away?
4.3 ly = 3.635e-13 m/s/s
2.15 ly = 1.454e-12m/s/s
Is anything going to get between us and Sirius?
~ BG
DougC
> Is anything going to get between us and Sirius?
Probably not before April. Relax.
Doug Chandler
Sam Wormley
> On Oct 13, 2:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/13/10 3:55 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 13, 1:49 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/13/10 3:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
>>>>>>>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
>>>>>>>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
>>>>>>>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
>>>>>>> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>>
>>>>>>> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
>>>>>>> escape, unless it�s just recently getting to that point because of the
>>>>>>> great amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity
>>>>>>> to escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
>>>>>>> stars.
>>
>>>>>> The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
>>>>>> any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
>>
>>>>> So, you and others of your kind were here as of 260+ million years
>>>>> ago. Do tell.
>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>> What about you, Brad? Were your here as of 260+ million years ago
>>>> at which time the Sun was, as is now, a single star system. Our
>>>> Sun has never been a double star, Brad.
>>
>>> Just because you keep giving me one messily gold star, and otherwise
>>> avoiding getting into anything that could revise your mainstream faith-
>>> based interpretation, I'm going to restart this topic and perhaps
>>> include at least one other newsgroup that'll make you happy.
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> I think you are not bright enough to realize that orbits are
>> essentially forever, Brad. Jupiter's orbit about the sun is
>> about 4.5 billion years old.
>>
>> If the Sun ever had a binary partner, it would likely still
>> have it.
>
> Your exclusion of any change in mass or distance is noted.
>
> ~ BG
Thank you--because the mass and orbital distances ARE very
constant.
Brad Guth
I was just wondering if the empty barycenter between us and Sirius was
ever going to have anything contributing to the mutual acceleration
that's taking place.
btw; What's happening in April?
The elliptical velocity variance of 12.4:1 (4.64>.374 km/sec) of
Sedna, and the kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems rather
impressive. So what’s keeping our interaction with Sirius down to
such a dull roar, especially way back when the Sirius molecular/nebula
threat used to be worth <3e37 kg?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414224102AAxaj50
~ BG
Brad Guth
> "Brad Guth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:51476ce1-8679-49c5...@l8g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 12, 1:27 pm, Mark Earnest <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > If everything has to be in orbit, all we would have by now would be
> > multiple
> > stars and multiple galaxies. We're in orbit around the hub of the
> > galaxy,
> > isn't that enough? And galaxies just all fly away from one another!
>
> > Collision course with Andromeda?
> > I never heard of such a thing.
> > And if certain scientists are worried about this, they must
> > plan on living a long, long time.
>
> It's always fun to pretend that we are at the center of the Semitic
> faith-based approved universe, that's only and always forever
> expanding away from us. I'm certain that Alan Guth and any number of
> other mainstream closed mindsets would have agree with you, or else.
>
> Do you have some objective science suggesting that galaxies do not
> actually interact with one another?
>
> *************************************
> collide and form new and larger ones, as well as cannibalize smaller ones.
> However, Solar Systems are pretty much in lockstep with the Spiral Arm they
> inhabit. A loose cannon rogue Star may cause some disturbance if it has
> several solar masses and get within, say, 2 or 3 light-years ... but alas,
> your wet dream of interaction with Sirius is just that ... midnight GuthBall
> sperm emission..
Redneck Hagar flatulence:
: FWIW, the acceleration of the solar system in the Sirius system's
: gravitational field is about 6*10^-15 g (6*10^-14 m/s^2). I think
it
: will be quite a while before anyone notices anything happening.
: The earth's influence on the sun is about 250,000 times stronger.
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html
Using 7e30 kg, 2.02e30 kg and 8.6 ly, I got 9.09e-14 m/s (combined to
start with)
In other words, according to math, in another ten thousand years our
7.6 km/sec closing velocity will have become only worth a little extra
(using an average acceleration of 2.22e-13 m/s/s);
2.22e-13 * 3.6e3 * 24 * 3.65e2 * 1e4 = 7e-2 m/s
Doesn’t it matter how far away?
4.3 ly = 3.635e-13 m/s/s
2.15 ly = 1.454e-12m/s/s
The elliptical velocity variance of 12.4:1 (4.64>.374 km/sec) of
Brad Guth
the interstellar velocity of stellar mass or even molecular/nebula
matter <0.1c?
Speculation as offered by others: "If Betelgeuse exploded now, it
would produce a luminous Type II supernova with a blast wave expanding
at about 15,000 km/sec." (actually the initial velocity at <2r might
exit at <30,000 km/sec, but it’s certainly not going to sustain that
velocity)
Obviously a nova or especially supernova contributing trillions upon
trillions of photons/sec per each and every square arcsecond would
make tracks of their expansion at <c, although otherwise that’s about
the only aspect of the near future demise of Betelgeuse that would
interact with whatever distant buckyballs and other matter that’s far,
far away, long before there’s any actual physical substance of
Betelgeuse that gets there or here at any 15,000 km/sec (at 650 ly
distance and more than a few tens of millennium from now, I’d
seriously doubt we’d encounter such stellar flack at more than 3000 km/
s, partially because our own solar winds would have been getting in
the way). The exception might have been the nova/helium-flash demise
of Sirius(B), only because it was so nearby is why it could have
represented nova winds of <9000 km/sec, which would have likely
penetrated our magnetosphere.
http://www.answers.com/topic/supernova
“A supernova shines typically for several weeks to several months
with a luminosity between 2e8 and 5e9 times that of the Sun, then
gradually fades away. Each explosion ejects from one to several tens
of solar masses at speeds ranging from thousands to tens of thousands
of kilometers per second. The total kinetic energy, 1e44 joules
(2.5e28 megatons of high explosive), is about 100 times the total
light output, making supernovae some of the highest-energy explosions
in the universe. Unlike its fainter relative, the nova, a supernova
does not recur for the same object.”
“Supernovae are extremely luminous and cause a burst of radiation that
often briefly outshines an entire galaxy, before fading from view over
several weeks or months. During this short interval a supernova can
radiate as much energy as the Sun is expected to emit over its entire
life span.[1] The explosion expels much or all of a star's
material[2] at a velocity of up to 30,000 km/s (10% of the speed of
light), driving a shock wave[3] into the surrounding interstellar
medium. This shock wave sweeps up an expanding shell of gas and dust
called a supernova remnant.”
Obviously many others besides myself think .1c is somewhat of an
obtainable space travel velocity, or that of physical cosmic
expansion, although objectively there’s still nothing on record as
suggesting such a sustained exit/expansion velocity has ever been
obtained, much less capable of moving such tenuous molecular/nebulas
gas and whatever of less than picometer particles such as including
carbon buckyballs capable of creating progenitor stars, at least not
while at such extreme distance (1000+ ly) from their originating
event.
It’s as though the further away the more mainstream voodoo conditional
physics and multiple illusions become necessary, because those most
distant galaxies are supposedly exiting away from us at nearly c.
However, I’m thinking it’s somewhat like going into an amusement
funhouse that has you surrounded by all those angled/distorted
mirrors, except perhaps those cosmic mirrors and gravity lens affects
can retransmit or divert photons at better than 99.9999% efficiency,
so there’s no easy way of telling what’s an original source photon and
what’s the copy or that of its reflected and thus always red-shifted
ghost image, because the original source of those reflected photons
may simply no longer exist due to old age or multiple other
circumstances.
However, perhaps if we keep spending every last nickel and dime we can
borrow, on looking further and hard enough, we’ll eventually get to
see our own assholes, and then what?
Not that the cosmic grass isn’t always greener and otherwise more
nifty the further away we look. However, why not instead look and
explore hardest at whatever’s nearest and most likely to have
interacted with our past, present and future, such as the planet
Venus, or how about our not gazing much further away than Sirius?
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Brad Guth
> On 10/13/10 11:47 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 13, 2:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/13/10 3:55 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 13, 1:49 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 10/13/10 3:35 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 13, 11:19 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/13/10 1:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 13, 6:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> "Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
> >>>>>>>> orbital eccentricity< 1. For eccentricity> 1, i.e., hyperbolic
> >>>>>>>> orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even though
> >>>>>>>> they have gravitational influence on each other.
> >>>>>>> Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words.
>
> >>>>>>> Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories, however it
> >>>>>>> escape, unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the
Sounds perfectly kosher. Obviously you don't get along with the Pope
or any other faith-based interpretation on any of this.
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html
Using 7e30 kg, 2.02e30 kg and 8.6 ly, I got 9.09e-14 m/s/s (combined
to start with)
In other words, according to math, in another ten thousand years our
7.6 km/sec closing velocity will have become only worth a little extra
(using an average acceleration of 2.22e-13 m/s/s);
2.22e-13 * 3.6e3 * 24 * 3.65e2 * 1e4 = 7e-2 m/s
Doesn’t it matter how far away?
4.3 ly = 3.635e-13 m/s/s
2.15 ly = 1.454e-12m/s/s
The elliptical velocity variance of 12.4:1 (4.64>.374 km/sec) of
Sedna, and the kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems rather
impressive. So what’s the voodoo that's keeping our interaction with
Brad Guth
binding that took place as of 260+ million years ago, at least not any
better than our Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended or at least
sucker-punched by Andromeda, because everything out there (including
rogue intergalactic stuff) is in orbit around something, even if it’s
anything Alan Guth has figured out, or otherwise held tight by the
substantial core mass of our galaxy. As far as I can tell, it’s
simply impossible to remain as isolated and independently rogue
forever, because sooner or later something else gets within range of
revised, including some captured as being within the many
possibilities, and unfortunately Andromeda isn’t the only item that’s
closing in on us.
According to our Sam Wormley:
"Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
orbital eccentricity < 1. For eccentricity > 1, i.e., hyperbolic
orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
though they have gravitational influence on each other.
: The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
: any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words to go
along with your faith-based approved denial and obfuscation policy.
Too bad that you and other parrots still can’t muster up any 3D
interactive orbital simulations for the rest of us, so that we can
make a few well educated adjustments and otherwise easily go back and
forward in time, just like JPL does all the time with captured
satellites or plans of getting new missions captured while utilizing
the least amount of energy.
Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories unless
there’s a third significant body involved, however it doesn’t seem as
though our solar system has ever managed to entirely escape, unless
it’s just recently getting to that point because of the great amounts
of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity to escape
whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius stars.
The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit is what
I believe we’re still dealing with, and is there really any doubt as
to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a 3e37 kg
body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby solar
system?
Try to remember, unless there were preexisting gravity seeds or
external causations via nearby supernova compressions, it was likely a
good million some odd years before those Sirius stars managed to
emerge and blow all else away. Even a 1e37 kg molecular/nebula mass
or 50 ly radii can't be all that insignificant when you're parked
right next to it, or even a little into it, and only worse yet if our
trajectory were less than parallel and closing in.
Escape Velocity (did we always have enough escape velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Are you still suggesting that captures are impossible? (because team
Keck, Hubble and most others might not agree with that analogy or
interpretation of yours)
What small percentage of our galaxy has been captured by something
that’s more massive? (if there were only those substantial black holes
from the BB to begin with, would you care to believe at least 99.9%?)
On a local solar system limited bases; what percentage of items have
been captured as opposed to their having existed or created as is from
the very get-go?
Most faith-based and politically correct mindsets want to insist that
everything stays exactly the same, as well as insisting that their
singular Big Bang and its forever expansion represents that nothing
ever interacts with anything else or much less ever gets reincarnated
or reformulated as another comparable solar system, much less hosting
Eden like planets suitable for naked Goldilocks inhabitants.
However, a properly outfitted tribe of Goldilocks with some technical
expertise actually has a wide range of planets and moons to explore
and even habitat, and with only minimal space travel or directed
panspermia capability that’s similar to ours, means that there’s no
telling how many Goldilocks inhabited or seeded planets and moons are
out there, or even those existing within our solar system. For all we
know, at least part of our global biodiversity was likely imported or
seeded by other Goldilock ETs (aka Rothschild Seans), rather than
purely created by random happenstance and/or limited as to purely
terrestrial evolution that has more missing gaps than Muslims having
WMD.
All combined, by now there's likely more significant rogue stuff
that's Ceres or larger, than there are stars within our galaxy. As
time goes on there will be an increased number of those WDs and
therefore an increased number of rogue planets and their moons, not to
mention billions of perfectly stable red and brown dwarfs with their
own planets to pick from, and perhaps that’s just on our half of this
galaxy. Close binary stars would have tossed or sent whatever planets
packing as of long before becoming WDs, but that’s only adding to
whatever’s available as rogue items, so it seems the James Webb Space
Telescope is going to be very busy at cataloging such items.
A 10x Jupiter mother planet with moons the size of Earth would
actually be an okay option for going rogue, as long as some degree of
geothermal, nuclear/thorium and local fusion energy was made available
in addition to whatever hydrocarbons necessary for polluting
everything in sight.
Pick a direction, and perhaps on average there's likely a million
perfectly good options within any one degree cone. That's 129.6
billion viable planets or moons to pick from (including whatever’s
rogue), plus whatever the other half of our galaxy has to offer. How
could there not be any possible life elsewhere, especially when taking
other galaxies into account?
This potential of 256 billion worthy considerations per galaxy is not
having to insist that other complex life populated planets or moons
have to be nearly as advanced as us, or even humanoid populated (their
biodiversity could be all plant and animal). But honestly, how hard
would it have to be for others being a whole lot smarter than most of
us? (especially when there’s terrestrial slime-mold and spores that
are smarter about surviving than some dysfunctional versions of people
we know of)
At least contributor “palsing” isn’t afraid to allow "C3 = 0 orbit"
captures by simply reversing the escape velocity formula, and of
course taking the time of whatever gravitational exposures into
account. Obviously Sam Wormley and others of his faith-based
mainstream naysay cabal of perpetual denial and obfuscation want
nothing to ever change, at least not for the better if that means
revising history.
Then we have the elliptical velocity variance of 12.4:1 (4.64>.374 km/
sec) of Sedna, and the kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems rather
impressive. So what’s the special voodoo of conditional physics
that's keeping our interaction with Sirius down to such a dull roar,
especially way back when the Sirius molecular/nebula threat used to be
worth <3e37 kg?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414224102AAxaj50
In other words, how can something like Sedna and even more extreme
items remain attracted to and thus captured by our sun, while at the
same time our sun supposedly can’t be attracted or much less tidal
captured by Sirius that started out worth <3e37 kg?
~ BG
palsing
> Sounds perfectly kosher. Obviously you don't get along with the Pope
> or any other faith-based interpretation on any of this.
>
> http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html
> Using 7e30 kg, 2.02e30 kg and 8.6 ly, I got 9.09e-14 m/s/s (combined
> to start with)
> In other words, according to math, in another ten thousand years our
> 7.6 km/sec closing velocity will have become only worth a little extra
> (using an average acceleration of 2.22e-13 m/s/s);
> 2.22e-13 * 3.6e3 * 24 * 3.65e2 * 1e4 = 7e-2 m/s
Obviously you don't understand that this on-line calculator is only
giving you answers for 2 bodies completely at rest with respect to one
another. It does not work for 2 bodies in motion with respect to one
another, that is a whole different can of worms.
\Paul A
hanson
>
"Brad Guth" <brad...@gmail.com> makes a big deal
about a **** "Sirius Grip" **** and he wrote about:
.. �The Great Attractor� .. that doesn�t fit into anything
or otherwise held tight ... & acc to our Sam Wormley:
"Bound" implies any two bodies are not "bound" to
each other"... and Brad continues: [edited for brevity]
However, a properly outfitted tribe of Goldilocks with
capability so that there�s no telling how many Goldilocks
exist. All combined, honestly, how hard would it have to
be for other faith-based mainstream naysay cabal of
perpetual denial and obfuscation to ever change, at least
not for the better if that means the special voodoo of
conditional physics that's keeping our interaction with
>
hanson wrote:
Brad, you would be far more convincing if you would
have illustrated your fetish with some pix like
your "Sirius Grip" here:
<<http://tinyurl.com/Sirius-Grip-1>>
<<http://tinyurl.com/The-Grip-mechanism-1>>
>
or like your "Attractor" here:
<<http://tinyurl.com/Attractor-and-Sirius-Grip-1>>
<<http://tinyurl.com/Attractor-and-Sirius-Grip-2>>
>
or like your "Bound System" here:
<<http://tinyurl.com/Bound-System-1>>
<<http://tinyurl.com/Attractor-Grip-Bound-1>>
>
Isn't is interesting to see how serious self-similarity
pervades nature in all of its domains and over all
ranges of magnitude in the accessible universe?
Carry on and thanks for the laughs... ahahahanson
palsing
> At least contributor “palsing” isn’t afraid to allow "C3 = 0 orbit"
> captures by simply reversing the escape velocity formula, and of
> course taking the time of whatever gravitational exposures into
> account.
OK, I'm not at all sure just what words you are trying to put in my
mouth, because I sure don't recognize those... what I said was there
are several moons in our solar system that appear to be captured
bodies. One or both of Mar's moons are suspected to be captured, and
Triton, one of Neptune's moon, since it is retrograde, is also
suspected of being a capture. Same with Phoebe, outermost moon of
Saturn. Note I said 'suspected'. There are almost certainly others. I
also said that it is VERY unlikely that our own moon is a captured
body, it would have had way too much momentum to have been captured by
the Earth.
Read these;
<http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=333>
... you won't understand most of what's in the first one, but you
should easily comprehend the second one.
\Paul A
Brad Guth
Capturing a moon works the same as capturing a planet or a star. In
the case of our moon/Selene, it most likely utilized a lithobraking
encounter of a glancing blow to Earth.
~ BG
palsing
> Capturing a moon works the same as capturing a planet or a star. In
> the case of our moon/Selene, it most likely utilized a lithobraking
> encounter of a glancing blow to Earth.
From Wiki;
"Lithobraking is a technique of descent by an unmanned space vehicle
(usually a probe) to the surface of a body by which the vehicle is
slowed by impact with the body's surface." It goes on to say;
"The term is also sometimes used as a euphemism to describe situations
in which lithobraking was not the original desired landing method -
i.e., crashes."
So, as far as I know, you are the first to propose 'lithobraking' as a
valid capture method, very imaginative of you... but not very likely,
imo. The speed and momentum of the moon would have far too high to
have been captured by the Earth. Note that all of the supposedly
captured moons in the solar system are way, way smaller than their
respective capturing bodies.
The 'mainstream' theory of the formation of the moon, which for some
reason you have a problem accepting, is the most likely scenario,
because the odds against a capture are just too high.
\Paul A
Brad Guth
As a rear-ender kind of glancing sucker-punch, the extremely icy moon/
Selene of perhaps 8e22 kg could have approached Earth at a minimal
closing velocity, and just basically bounced off. There could also
have been a near miss or two (before and after), allowing for
aerobraking.
Can you suggest how that lunar south pole 2500 km crater came to be,
and/or how about explaining our Arctic ocean basin and that rather
nifty antipode we call Antarctica?
What other sort of sufficient lithobraking impact created our seasonal
tilt?
If that moon belonged to the planet Venus is a whole other can of
worms, so to speak, only because I do not believe Venus is any older
than Sirius(B).
http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
Launch angle / Launch force
*** -128 / 6.2 or 6.15
*** -129 / 6.0
*** -142 / 4.8
*** -126.35 / 6.7
*** -126.34 / 6.71
*** -126.335 / 6.71
~ BG
Brad Guth
Correct, we need better and fully interactive orbital simulators
that'll take everything into account. Should be simple, and to think
that it's all bought an paid for as is.
~ BG
Brad Guth
btw; this silly little interactive simulator lacks a great deal of
important detail and options that any one of more than a dozen public-
funded supercomputers could easily fix.
There's atmospherics of each plus ice loading factors of both surfaces
and of course the actual lithobraking and global tilt considerations,
as well as the solar alignment and the possible interactions of a
planet like Venus w/moon arriving.
Earth is also a very thin crusted ball that's actually quite fluid and
flexible, and even the moon isn't a solid.
~ BG
Brad Guth
As a rear-ender kind of glancing sucker-punch, the extremely icy moon/
Selene of perhaps 8e22 kg could have approached Earth at a minimal
closing velocity, and just basically bounced off. There could also
have been a near miss or two (before and after), allowing for a great
deal of aerobraking.
Can you suggest how that lunar south pole 2500 km crater came to be,
and/or how about explaining our Arctic ocean basin and that rather
nifty antipode we call Antarctica?
What other sort of sufficient lithobraking impact created our seasonal
tilt?
If that moon belonged to the planet Venus is a whole other can of
worms, so to speak, only worse because I do not believe Venus is any
older than Sirius(B).
http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml
Launch angle / Launch force
*** -128 / 6.2 or 6.15
*** -129 / 6.0
*** -142 / 4.8
*** -126.35 / 6.7
*** -126.34 / 6.71
*** -126.335 / 6.71
btw; this silly little interactive simulator lacks a great deal of
important details and options that any one of more than a dozen public-
Brad Guth
> > > Our sun is not gravitationally bound to any other star.
>
> > I gave you all 5 gold stars for being our resident village idiot, not
> > that it's sufficient to compensate for your topic/author stalking
> > policy that gave me just one gold star.
>
> nope - you are the group eggplant.
>
>
> > Apparently my topic represents a sufficient threat, enough to put your
> > mainstream group of perpetual naysayers and obfuscation expertise at
> > risk. Obviously if you had any 3D simulation of orbital mechanics
> > that could prove me wrong, you would have utilized such.
>
> > Better luck next time.
>
> > ~ BG
So go right ahead and tell us plus use whatever computer simulation to
show, why our solar system has always been rogue and thus always
unaffected by anything around us.
~ BG
Brad Guth
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As an analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s captured within our
solar system is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg of an exotic mineral red
ice.
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving along at better than 150 fold faster than
the required escape velocity at the furthest elliptical trajectory,
and otherwise it’s moving better than 550 fold faster than required at
its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna just sail off into the wild black
yonder?
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can see there’s supposedly no problem as of nowadays escaping
whatever Sirius has to offer, however in the beginning when Sirius
represented a molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37 kg is when our rogue
solar system independence from all things Sirius should have been
technically impossible (even at 128 light years = 57.5 km/sec).
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever remaining nebula/molecular gas that’s with 1 ly, plus
whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, perhaps for
the same reasons why Sedna and other far reaching Oort cloud items are
not able to escape our solar system is perhaps the very same reason
why our solar system can’t entirely avoid the deep elliptical
association that had been previously established with Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong about the physics
of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with orbiting Sirius,
even at its greatly reduced mass.
~ BG
On Oct 12, 12:32 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps our solar system could not avoidSiriusany better than our
> Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended by Andromeda, because
> everything out there (including rogue intergalactic stuff) is in
> orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great Attractor” as a
> cosmic wormhole. It’s simply impossible to remain as isolated and
> independently rogue forever, because sooner or later something else
> gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and trajectories get
> unavoidably revised, including captured being within the many
> possibilities.
>
> Contributor “palsing” tells us:
> “Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
> after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
> betweenSiriusand our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
>
> We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
> solar system being captured bySirius, because to me it honestly
> doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
> have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
> molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away fromSirius, plus there’s simply no telling where thatSiriusmolecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become sufficient escape velocity with
> the current reduced mass and sufficient distance, although all thingsSiriusdidn’t always represent such little influence.
> representing a currentSirius:XV3 ratio as got theSiriusgrip as
> having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention
> that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically down-sized
> mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as
> any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That original mass ratio as offering a gravity binding force and
> subsequent tidal capture link between Sol andSiriusused to have
> something near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work
> with, and there’s still no objective way of telling how close we
> actually were to begin with.
>
> Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
> Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
> doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
> too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
> the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
> subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
> expected.
>
> For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
> birth to those nearbySiriusprotostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
> had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
> volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
> require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
> worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
> the previous 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
>
> In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
> velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
> down, or a thousand years if constant at the same starting velocity.
> The average cloud density that needs to include those terrific stellar
> CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps exceeding 1e6/
> cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME stuff to
> start off with.
>
> In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
> years after those new stars started pushing away their remainder/
> surplus volume of molecular/nebula mass, the radii will have increased
> by only 6.4e4 ly (with us pretty much situated dead center), and when
> given 260 million years offers 16.64e6 ly as long as the exit velocity
> remained unchanged. However, at most theSiriusmolecular cloud radii
> thatSiriusemerged and UV illuminated us at roughly the exact same
> time as our global environment and a few other considerations about
> our solar system changed forever. There’s even a good chance that the
> terrificSiriusUV illumination was for a time every bit as great as
> that of what our sun was providing.
>
> Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the
> mainstream status-quo day, because even at 1024 light years requires
> 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order to stay clear of being influenced
> by any such 3e37 kg mass of a molecular/nebula cloud. Of course that
> also requires that we’re either running at least parallel or much less
> not heading into it or being overtaken. Gee whiz, as is what could
> possibly go wrong?
>
> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
>
> The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
> will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
> distance, especially when our galactic mass is added into the formula,
> which of course only works to our advantage if we’re not headed
> towards or being overtaken, because the closer we get the greater that
> escape velocity requirement becomes. So, if we don’t get nailed by
> Andromeda on this pass, sure thing the next time around isn’t going to
> be so lucky.
>
> In the case ofSirius, the available mass is hardly worth anything
> compared to what it started out as <3e37 kg, so we’re gradually losing
> our orbital attachment or capture bySirius, and that’s a very good
Brad Guth
Why don't you explain that terrific 2500 km crater that our moon has.
Where's that absolutely huge item which smacked into our moon?
Obviously the moon survived that terrific encounter, so must have the
very large impactor that can't possibly be very far away.
-
Escape Velocity (did our solar system always have enough escape
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As an analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s captured within our
Brad Guth
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As an analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s captured within our
solar system, is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg of an exotic mineral
saturated red ice.
Orbital velocity of Sedna:
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving along at better than 150 fold faster than
the required escape velocity at the furthest elliptical trajectory,
and otherwise it’s moving better than 550 fold faster than required at
its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna just sail off into the wild black
yonder?
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem as of our solar
system nowadays that’s closing in at 7.6 km/sec easily escaping
whatever Sirius has to offer, however in the beginning when Sirius
represented a molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37 kg is when our rogue
solar system independence or freedom from all things Sirius should
have been technically impossible (even at 128 light years = 57.5 km/
sec).
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever remaining nebula/molecular gas that’s within 1 ly, plus
whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, perhaps for
the same reasons why Sedna and other far reaching Oort cloud items are
not able to escape our solar system is perhaps the very same reason
why our solar system can’t entirely avoid the deep elliptical
association that had been previously established with Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong about the physics
of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with orbiting Sirius
even at its greatly reduced mass, for the same reason Sedna with its
way more than sufficient escape velocity is stuck with orbiting our
sun.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
On Oct 12, 12:32 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps our solar system could not avoid Sirius any better than our
> Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended by Andromeda, because
> everything out there (including rogue intergalactic stuff) is in
> orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great Attractor” as a
> cosmic wormhole. It’s simply impossible to remain as isolated and
> independently rogue forever, because sooner or later something else
> gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and trajectories get
> unavoidably revised, including captured being within the many
> possibilities.
>
> Contributor “palsing” tells us:
> “Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
> after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
> between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
>
> We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
> solar system being captured by Sirius, because to me it honestly
> doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
> have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
> molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, plus there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become sufficient escape velocity with
> the current reduced mass and sufficient distance, although all things
> Sirius didn’t always represent such little influence.
> representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as got the Sirius grip as
> having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention
> that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically down-sized
> mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as
> any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That original mass ratio as offering a gravity binding force and
> subsequent tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have
> something near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work
> with, and there’s still no objective way of telling how close we
> actually were to begin with.
>
> Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
> Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
> doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
> too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
> the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
> subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
> expected.
>
> For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
> birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
> had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
> volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
> require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
> worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
> the previous 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
>
> In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
> velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
> down, or a thousand years if constant at the same starting velocity.
> The average cloud density that needs to include those terrific stellar
> CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps exceeding 1e6/
> cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME stuff to
> start off with.
>
> In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
> years after those new stars started pushing away their remainder/
> surplus volume of molecular/nebula mass, the radii will have increased
> by only 6.4e4 ly (with us pretty much situated dead center), and when
> given 260 million years offers 16.64e6 ly as long as the exit velocity
> remained unchanged. However, at most the Sirius molecular cloud radii
> that Sirius emerged and UV illuminated us at roughly the exact same
> time as our global environment and a few other considerations about
> our solar system changed forever. There’s even a good chance that the
> terrific Sirius UV illumination was for a time every bit as great as
> that of what our sun was providing.
>
> Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the
> mainstream status-quo day, because even at 1024 light years requires
> 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order to stay clear of being influenced
> by any such 3e37 kg mass of a molecular/nebula cloud. Of course that
> also requires that we’re either running at least parallel or much less
> not heading into it or being overtaken. Gee whiz, as is what could
> possibly go wrong?
>
> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
>
> The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
> will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
> distance, especially when our galactic mass is added into the formula,
> which of course only works to our advantage if we’re not headed
> towards or being overtaken, because the closer we get the greater that
> escape velocity requirement becomes. So, if we don’t get nailed by
> Andromeda on this pass, sure thing the next time around isn’t going to
> be so lucky.
>
> In the case of Sirius, the available mass is hardly worth anything
> compared to what it started out as <3e37 kg, so we’re gradually losing
> our orbital attachment or capture by Sirius, and that’s a very good
Brad Guth
Escape Velocity (did our solar system always have enough escape
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As an analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s captured within our
solar system, is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg of an exotic reddish
mineral saturated icy planetoid that can’t seem to get away from the
past any better than our solar system is keeping itself away from
Sirius.
Orbital velocity of Sedna:
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving along at better than 150 fold faster than
the required escape velocity at the furthest elliptical trajectory,
and otherwise it’s moving better than 550 fold faster than required at
its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna just sail off into the wild black
yonder?
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem as of our solar
system nowadays that’s supposedly closing in at 7.6 km/sec, thereby
easily escaping whatever Sirius has to offer. However, in the
beginning when Sirius represented a molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37
kg is when our rogue solar system independence or freedom from all
things Sirius should have been technically impossible (even at 128
light years = 57.5 km/sec).
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever remaining nebula/molecular gas that’s within 1 ly, plus
whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, perhaps for
the same reasons why Sedna and other far reaching Oort cloud items are
not able to escape our solar system is perhaps the very same reason
why our solar system can’t entirely avoid the deep elliptical
association that had been previously established with Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong about the physics
of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with orbiting Sirius
even at its greatly reduced mass, for the same reason Sedna with its
way more than sufficient escape velocity is stuck with orbiting our
sun.
-
Why don't you try to explain that terrific 2500 km crater that our
moon has.
Where's that absolutely huge (planet sized) item which smacked into
our moon?
Obviously the moon survived that terrific encounter, so must have the
very large impactor that can't possibly be very far away.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
mainstream voodoo interpretations that seems to always get public
funded and published into our best science journals and K12 textbooks,
without ever any thought as to proper fact checking or independent
review. Gee, it’s almost like the popular sport of accusing Muslims
of having WMD, so that Muslim oil can’t so easily get to market or
much less under-priced. (oops! that’s almost sounding a wee bit
conspiratorial)
Sirius Escape Velocity (did our solar system always have enough escape
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As an analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s captured within our
solar system, is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg of an exotic reddish
mineral saturated icy planetoid that can’t seem to get away from the
past any better than our solar system is keeping itself away from
Sirius.
Orbital velocity of Sedna:
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving along at better than 150 fold faster than
the required escape velocity at its furthest elliptical trajectory,
and otherwise it’s moving better than 550 fold faster than required at
its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna just sail off into the wild black
yonder?
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem as of our solar
system nowadays that’s supposedly closing in at 7.6 km/sec, thereby
easily escaping whatever Sirius has to offer. However, in the
beginning when Sirius represented a molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37
kg is when our rogue solar system independence or freedom from all
things Sirius should have been technically impossible (even at 128
light years = 57.5 km/sec, or if you like 1024 ly = 20+ km/sec).
Of course it would be nice if we had been at least running parallel or
ideally somewhat away from Sirius, but that hasn’t been the case.
Instead we have two orbital trajectories getting modified as we close
in on one another, exactly as the Sedna elliptical path manages to
survive multiple encounters within 76 AU of our sun, never losing its
association in spite of having more than sufficient escape velocity.
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever remaining nebula/molecular gas that’s within 1 ly, plus
whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, perhaps for
the same reasons why Sedna and other far reaching Oort cloud items are
not able to escape our solar system is perhaps the very same reason
why our solar system can’t entirely avoid the deep elliptical
association that had been previously established with Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong about the physics
of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with orbiting Sirius
even at its greatly reduced mass, for the same reason Sedna with its
way more than sufficient escape velocity is stuck with orbiting our
sun.
-
Why don't you folks try to better explain that terrific 2500 km crater
that our moon has.
Where's that absolutely huge (planet sized) item which smacked into
our physically dark moon?
Obviously the moon survived that absolutely terrific encounter, and so
must have the very large impactor that can't possibly be very far
away. Another valid argument is that many acceptable peers of
sufficient expertise have suggested <40% of the material displaced by
such lunar impacts ended up right here on Earth, with the other 60%
falling back onto the lunar surface for a second, third and forth
round of impacting that naked surface, and that’s always going to
create a terrific amount of crystal dry lose rock and dust, plus
whatever crystal dry mass those impactors contributed can’t be so
easily excluded.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
This followup reply is for the newsgroup benefit of those in
"alt.astronomy" which topic/author stalk and bash for all their
Semitic faith-based bias can muster.
Those pesky conditional laws of physics are back, whereas it’s our
mainstream voodoo interpretations that seems to always get public
funded and published into our best science journals and K12 textbooks,
without ever any thought as to proper fact checking or independent
review. Gee, it’s almost like the popular sport of accusing Muslims
of having WMD, so that Muslim oil can’t so easily get to market or
much less under-priced. (oops! that’s almost sounding a wee bit
conspiratorial)
Sirius Escape Velocity (did our solar system always have enough escape
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As an analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s captured within our
Brad Guth
whereas it’s our mainstream voodoo interpretations that seems to
always get public funded and published into our best science journals
or independent review. Gee, it’s almost like the popular sport of
accusing Muslims of having WMD, so that Muslim oil can’t so easily get
to market or much less under-priced. (oops! that’s almost sounding a
wee bit conspiratorial)
Sirius Escape Velocity (did our solar system always have enough escape
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As offering a direct analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s
captured within our solar system, is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg of
an exotic reddish mineral saturated icy planetoid that can’t seem to
get away from the past any better than our solar system is keeping
itself away from Sirius.
Orbital velocity of Sedna:
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving itself along at better than 150 fold faster
than the required escape velocity at its furthest elliptical
trajectory, and otherwise it’s moving better than 550 fold faster
escape velocity than required at its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna
just sail off into the wild black yonder?
Last time I’d checked, the Sirius collective of mass was worth
considerably more than Sedna, and it only gets much worse as we go
back in time.
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem as of our solar
system nowadays that’s supposedly closing in at the radial velocity of
7.6 km/sec, thereby supposedly escaping whatever Sirius has to offer
unless those trajectory estimates of proper motion are way the hell
off. However, in the beginning when all things Sirius for more than a
million years represented a molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37 kg, is
when our rogue solar system independence or freedom from all things
Sirius should have been technically impossible (even at 128 light
years = 57.5 km/sec, or if you like 1024 ly = 20+ km/sec).
Of course it would be nice if we had been at least running parallel or
ideally somewhat away from Sirius, but sadly that hasn’t been the
case. Instead we have two orbital trajectories getting modified as
each closes in on one another, and that’s pretty much exactly as the
Sedna elliptical path manages to survive its multiple encounters
within 76 AU of our sun, somehow never losing its tidal bound
association in spite of having more than sufficient escape velocity.
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever’s remaining of nebula/molecular gas that’s within 1 ly, plus
whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, no such
luck, perhaps for the same reasons why Sedna and other far reaching
Oort cloud items are not able to escape our solar system is perhaps
the very same reason why our solar system can’t entirely avoid the
deep elliptical association that had been previously established with
Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong or voodooish about
the physics of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with
orbiting Sirius even at its greatly reduced mass, for the same reason
Sedna with its way more than sufficient escape velocity is stuck with
orbiting our sun.
-
If the emotional stress of explaining what has been going on with
Sirius and our solar system is too much to ask for, then why don't you
smart folks try to better explain that terrific 2500 km crater that
our moon has.
Where's that absolutely huge (planet sized) item which smacked into
our physically dark moon?
Obviously the moon survived that absolutely terrific encounter, so
must have the very large impactor that can't possibly be very far
away. Another valid argument is that many acceptable peers of
sufficient expertise have suggested <40% of the material displaced by
such lunar impacts ended up right here on Earth, with the other 60%
falling back onto the lunar surface for a second, third and forth
round of impacting that naked surface, and that’s always going to
create a terrific amount of crystal dry lose rock and dust, plus
whatever crystal dry mass those typically dark impactors contributed
can’t be so easily excluded or otherwise ignored
But don’t let any of this silly moon stuff distract you from the main
task or focus of this topic that’s looking for some better way of
explaining why we can’t manage to shake loose of Sirius.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
-
Contributor “palsing” has been telling us:
“Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
solar system being captured by Sirius, because to me it honestly
doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, the million plus year exposure and
the fact that we’re still not headed away from Sirius, plus there’s
simply no telling where that Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to
begin with as of 260+ million years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become
sufficient escape velocity with the current reduced mass and
sufficient distance, although all things Sirius didn’t always
represent such little influence, not that our trajectory or velocity
seems sufficient anyway.
With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should have to suggest a fair
number of rogue planets exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9 WDs
within our galaxy that were initially of equal or greater mass than
our sun, and if given on average only one surviving planet per WD is a
whopping 30e9 rogue planets (some w/moons) that had to go somewhere.
I would have to think the average number of surviving planets is
something more like 2 or 3 per WD, and our latest IR spectrum
telescopes should manage to detect those as large or larger than Venus
which so happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though even Earth at 128 mw/m2
shouldn’t be all that invisible, although the minimal heat flow from
our physically dark moon at perhaps 8<16 mw/m2 could be tough to
detect, especially if its thick crust were to become icy (say covered
by 64 km of ice and carbon buckyballs) should manage to further
insulate and keep that average heat flux well below 8 mw/m2, which is
still relatively hot compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps
offering at most 0.1 mw/m2 (including IR & UV).
Apparently there’s also a few black holes of <1e9 Ms going rogue, as
headed away from their galactic cores which likely had multiple ultra
massive <1e10 Ms BHs interacting, so perhaps these too are dragging a
few spare solar systems along for the intergalactic ride, and there’s
no telling where those fast moving items will eventually end up. I
can imagine that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could manage to spare and
thus shed multiple rogue BHs that have since been on their way to
becoming either pup-galaxies of their own, or should eventually
encounter and merge with whatever is in their path. For all we know,
Andromeda has tossed a few of those BH suckers our way, and perhaps by
the time we know with any certainty it’ll already be too late.
Not to continually nitpick this pesky capture thing, however, besides
our reddish icy Sedna that’s not going away (even though it should),
there’s also the likes of 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km
diameter, as perhaps worth at most 1.5e18 kg that’s still hanging with
us all the way out to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s offering a pathetic
tidal radii gravity binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and obviously
even it is not going away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.
It seems this is representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as got the
Sirius grip as having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us,
not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically
down-sized mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much
exactly as any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
That original mass ratio as offering a gravity tidal binding force and
subsequent capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something
near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work with, and
there’s still no objective way of telling how close we actually were
to begin with.
Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
expected.
For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
the previous estimate of 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
down, or a thousand years if it were constant at the same 1r starting
velocity. The average cloud density that needs to include those
terrific stellar CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps
exceeding 1e7/cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME
The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
distance, especially capture worthy when our galactic mass is added
into the formula, which of course only works to our escape velocity
advantage if we’re not headed towards or being overtaken, because the
closer we get the greater that escape velocity requirement becomes.
So, if we don’t get nailed by Andromeda on this pass, sure thing the
next time around isn’t going to be so lucky.
In the case of Sirius, the available mass as is is hardly worth
anything compared to what its surroundings started out as worth <3e37
kg, so perhaps we’re gradually losing our orbital attachment or
elliptical capture by Sirius, and that’s a very good thing unless
you’re into perpetual doom and gloom predictions.
Then we have the elliptical velocity variance of 12.4:1 (4.64>.374 km/
sec) of Sedna, and its kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems rather
impressive. So what’s the special voodoo of conditional physics
that's keeping our interaction with Sirius down to such a dull roar,
especially from way back when the Sirius molecular/nebula threat used
to be worth <3e37 kg?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414224102AAxaj50
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
In other words, how can something like Sedna and even those more
extreme items remain attracted to and thus captured by our sun when
they each have excessive escape velocity as is, while at the same time
our sun supposedly can’t be attracted to or much less tidal captured
by Sirius that started out worth <3e37 kg? (the escape velocity at
1024 ly = 20.33 km/sec, or 81.3 km/sec if that were us parked right
next to its 64 ly radii molecular/nebula cloud)
Perhaps it’s their voodoo conditional physics that I still can’t grasp
reality.
~ BG
Brad Guth
Perhaps our solar system could not avoid the original Sirius tidal
binding and subsequent capture of our solar system that took place as
of 260+ million years ago, at least not any better than our Milky Way
can avoid getting rear-ended or at least sucker-punched by Andromeda,
because everything out there (including rogue intergalactic stuff) is
in orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great Attractor” as
a cosmic wormhole that doesn’t fit into anything Alan Guth has figured
out, or otherwise being held tight by the substantial core mass of our
galaxy. As far as I can tell, it’s simply impossible to remain as
isolated and independently rogue forever, because sooner or later
something else gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and
trajectories get unavoidably perturbed or revised, including some
captured as being within the many possibilities, and unfortunately
Andromeda isn’t the only item that’s closing in on us, just like ours
is not the only galaxy headed into The Great Attractor.
According to our Sam Wormley:
"Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
orbital eccentricity < 1. For eccentricity > 1, i.e., hyperbolic
orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
though they have gravitational influence on each other.
: The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
: any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words to go
along with your faith-based approved denial and obfuscation policy.
Too bad that you and other parrots still can’t muster up any 3D
interactive orbital simulations to shock and awe the rest of us, so
that we can make a few well educated adjustments and otherwise easily
go back and forward in time, just like JPL does all the time with
captured satellites or whatever plans of getting new missions captured
while utilizing the least amount of energy.
Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories unless
there’s a third significant body involved, however it doesn’t seem as
though our solar system has ever managed to entirely escape Sirius,
unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the great
amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity to
escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
stars. The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit
is what I believe we’re still dealing with, and is there really any
doubt as to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a
3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
solar system?
Try to remember, unless there were preexisting gravity seeds or
external causations via nearby supernova compressions, it was likely a
good million some odd years before those Sirius stars managed to
emerge and proceed to blow all else away. Even a 1e37 kg molecular/
nebula mass and its 50 ly radii can't be all that insignificant when
you're parked right next to it, or conceivably even a little into it,
and only worse yet if our trajectory were less than parallel and
closing the gap.
Escape Velocity (did we always have enough escape velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Are you still suggesting that captures are impossible? (because team
Keck, Hubble and most others might not agree with that analogy or
interpretation)
What small percentage of our galaxy has been captured by something
that’s more massive? (if there were only those substantial black holes
from the BB to begin with, would you care to believe at least 99.9%?)
How about on a local solar system limited bases; what percentage of
items have been captured as opposed to their having existed or created
as is from the very get-go?
Most faith-based and politically correct mindsets want to insist that
everything stays exactly the same, as well as insisting that their
singular Big Bang and its forever expansion represents that nothing
ever interacts with anything else or much less ever gets reincarnated
or reformulated as another comparable solar system, much less hosting
wet Eden like planets suitable for naked Goldilocks inhabitants.
However, a properly outfitted tribe of Goldilocks with some technical
expertise actually has a wide range of planets and moons to explore
and even habitat, and with only minimal space travel or directed
panspermia capability that’s similar to ours, means that there’s no
telling how many Goldilocks inhabited or seeded planets and moons are
out there, or even those existing within our solar system. For all we
know, at least part of our global biodiversity was likely imported or
seeded by other Goldilock ETs (aka Rothschild Seans claim being here
as of 70 million years ago), rather than purely created by random
have to be nearly as Goldilocks advanced as us, or even humanoid
populated (their entire biodiversity could be all plant and animal).
But honestly, how hard would it have to be for others being a whole
lot smarter than most of us? (especially when there’s terrestrial
slime-mold and spores that have been smarter about surviving than some
dysfunctional versions of people we know of)
At least contributor “palsing” isn’t afraid to allow "C3 = 0 orbit"
captures by simply reversing the escape velocity formula, and of
course taking the time of whatever nearby gravitational exposures into
account. Obviously Sam Wormley and others of his faith-based
mainstream naysay cabal of perpetual denial and obfuscation want
nothing to ever change, at least not for the better if that means
revising history or worse having to admit they screwed up.
But then we have the elliptical velocity variance of 12.4:1 (4.64>.374
km/sec) of Sedna, and the kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems
rather impressive. So what’s the special voodoo of conditional
physics that's keeping our interaction with Sirius down to such a dull
roar, especially way back when a million years exposure to the Sirius
molecular/nebula threat used to be worth <3e37 kg?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414224102AAxaj50
In other words, how can something like Sedna and even more extreme
ranging items as having such excessive escape velocity remain
attracted to and thus captured by our sun, while at the same time we
are supposed to believe that our sun supposedly can’t be attracted to
or much less captured by Sirius that started out nearby and worth
<3e37 kg?
~ BG
Brad Guth
As a terrific molecular/nebula cloud creates fast burning stars like
Sirius(B) that goes from bad to worse in a relatively short period of
time, emulating a soft/slow nova as it quickly consumes itself, as
well as getting rid of mass as it converts from its red supergiant
phase into the final remainder as a white dwarf, is when having more
than a few light years separation is a seriously good idea, as well as
your planet having a thick/robust atmosphere is also going to come in
real handy.
Sirius(B) of roughly 260 million years old, is likely classified as a
medium-large white dwarf, as having converted or main sequenced itself
down from >8.5 Ms (possibly 9+). There are apparently a few extremely
large supernovas like “SN 2007if” suggesting an extra-massive white
dwarf had exceed 2 Ms, and those sorts of Wolf Rayet stars might have
started out as worth 16<32 Ms. Supposedly anything as small and >1.44
Ms is supposed to become a neutron star that should remain stable, so
it’s somewhat uncertain what happened.
SN 2007if offers further speculation of a possible binary or as
having rogue white dwarfs combining into creating a supernova, forming
into what otherwise requires a WD of 2.1 Ms. Possibly the Wolf Rayet
star that likely started off as a 30 Ms will become a maximum unstable
WD of <2 Ms.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/03/mystery-of-how-white-dwarf-star-system-could-exceed-mass-limit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%E2%80%93Rayet_star
The likes of Wolf Rayet (WR-124/M1-67) most certainly can’t be very
old, as perhaps only worth a few million years, possibly as young as
2.5e6 years (a tenth the age of Sirius), and thus when given 3e6 years
as having to lose <5.3e14 tonnes/sec is going to sustain a
considerable solar wind and packing enough density that’ll affect most
anything within several light years.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/astronomy/wolraysta.html
Some WR stars start off as worth <100 Ms, which sort of makes
Sirius(B) as having been kind of a pup version at ~9 Ms and perhaps
triggered towards the end by consuming Sirius(C). As long as
Sirius(B) never merges with or draws significant mass away from
Sirius(A), we got nothing to worry about.
Our sun most likely started off as worth <2.6e30 kg and having lost on
average ~4e12 kg/sec (obviously there was more initial loss/sec, and
it’s an ongoing process that’s as of lately running at somewhat less
than losing 3e12 kg/sec, could even be down to as little as 1e12 kg/
sec). Our eventual white dwarf will likely become the size of Mars,
as somewhat less than medium sized at 0.25<.33 Ms (possibly ending as
great as .5 Ms).
Just to give us some better idea about this. If our sun were having
to lose another 1.5e30 kg within the next 5 billion years requires an
average loss of 9.5e12 kg/sec. Obviously the red giant phase and the
final demise of converting into a white dwarf is when the vast bulk of
stellar mass has to be let go. The exact same thing happened for
Sirius(B), except much worse because of its original mass and the much
shorter timeline.
Mainstream published astronomy and K-12 taught astrophysics would
suggest that our sun is currently losing at most only 4e9 kg/sec,
however at that passive rate it’ll take 4.5 trillion years to
sufficiently deplete itself in order to turn into a red giant before
ever becoming the 0.25<.5 Ms white dwarf, and most of us should
realize that main sequence process is not going to take nearly that
much time. However, perhaps using the stellar mass loss average of
<4e9 tonnes/sec works about right, or at the very conservative least
using the average mass reduction of 3e9 tonnes/sec should not be
excluded.
Either way, it’s looking as though our Sirius(B) was originally worth
at least 8.5<9.5 Ms, as well as having to lose an average 2.6e12
tonnes/sec, and its dynamic outflux at the red supergiant end of its
accelerated main sequence phase that was about to convert into a
stable WD, likely started off with those helium flashover solar winds
of nearly 20000 km/s, which likely simmered down to something less
than a dull roar of perhaps as little as 2000 km/sec by the time such
winds interacted with our nearby solar system, and most likely what
helped to blow away whatever surviving planets that had already been
released from their original Sirius gravity binding capture, because
there’s no way any star as having been reduced to 1/8th mass is ever
going to keep its planets.
With <6% of stars reported as being white dwarfs should suggest a fair
number of rogue planets must exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9
WDs within our galaxy, and if given only one surviving planet per WD
is 30e9 rogue planets that had to go somewhere. When our sun ends as
a white dwarf, there well be at least 6 planets plus all the other
stuff set free, and because our sun is below average seems to suggest
that our galaxy likely has at least 1e11 rogue items available, and
that number could even be as great as 1e12 if we included all
significant items of Ceres or larger.
The latest James Webb Space Telescope that’s capable of doing an
extensive IR survey should help spot and catalog these rogue and
relatively cool galactic items, as well as those rogue intergalactic
items that got pulled out by an escaping massive enough star or black
hole. With a good supercomputer and loads of trajectory data, orbital
simulations should be capable of suggesting where certain rogue items
(including clouds of relatively cool molecular/nebula mass) well end
up.
Brad Guth Usenet, Blog and Google document pages:
bert
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Lots of universe structures are in lock step. TreBert
Brad Guth
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
As offering a direct analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s
captured within our solar system, is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg of
an exotic reddish mineral saturated icy planetoid that can’t seem to
get away from the past any better than our solar system is keeping
itself away from Sirius.
Orbital velocity of Sedna:
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving itself along at better than 150 fold faster
than the required escape velocity at its furthest elliptical
trajectory, and otherwise it’s moving better than 550 fold faster
escape velocity than required at its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna
just sail off into the wild black yonder?
Last time I’d checked, the Sirius collective of mass was worth
considerably more than Sedna, and it only gets much worse as we go
back in time.
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem as of our solar
system nowadays that’s supposedly closing in at the radial velocity of
7.6 km/sec, thereby supposedly escaping whatever Sirius has to offer
unless those trajectory estimates of proper motion are way the hell
off. However, in the beginning when all things Sirius for more than a
million years represented a molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37 kg, is
when our rogue solar system independence or freedom from all things
Sirius should have been technically impossible (even at 128 light
years = 57.5 km/sec, or if you like 1024 ly = 20+ km/sec).
Of course it would be nice if we had been at least running parallel or
ideally somewhat away from Sirius, but sadly that hasn’t been the
case. Instead we have two orbital trajectories getting modified as
each closes in on one another, and that’s pretty much exactly as the
Sedna elliptical path manages to survive its multiple encounters
within 76 AU of our sun, somehow never losing its tidal bound
association in spite of having more than sufficient escape velocity.
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever’s remaining of nebula/molecular gas that’s within 1 ly, plus
whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, no such
luck, perhaps for the same reasons why Sedna and other far reaching
Oort cloud items are not able to escape our solar system is perhaps
the very same reason why our solar system can’t entirely avoid the
deep elliptical association that had been previously established with
Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong or voodooish about
the physics of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with
orbiting Sirius even at its greatly reduced mass, for the same reason
Sedna with its way more than sufficient escape velocity is stuck with
orbiting our sun.
-
If the emotional stress of explaining what has been going on with
Sirius and our solar system is too much to ask for, then why don't you
smart folks try to better explain that terrific 2500 km crater that
our moon has.
Where's that absolutely huge (planet sized) item which smacked into
our physically dark moon?
Obviously the moon survived that absolutely terrific encounter, so
must have the very large impactor that can't possibly be very far
away. Another valid argument is that many acceptable peers of
sufficient expertise have suggested <40% of the material displaced by
such lunar impacts ended up right here on Earth, with the other 60%
falling back onto the lunar surface for a second, third and forth
round of impacting that naked surface, and that’s always going to
create a terrific amount of crystal dry lose rock and dust, plus
whatever crystal dry mass those typically dark impactors contributed
can’t be so easily excluded or otherwise ignored
But don’t let any of this silly moon stuff distract you from the main
task or focus of this topic that’s looking for some better way of
explaining why we can’t manage to shake loose of Sirius.
It seems those pesky conditional laws of physics are back with great
vengeance, whereas it’s our mainstream voodoo interpretations that
always manage to get public funded and published into our best science
journals and K12 textbooks without ever any thought as to proper fact
checking or independent review. Gee, it’s almost like the popular
sport of accusing Muslims of having WMD, so that Muslim oil can’t so
easily get to market or much less under-priced. (oops! that’s almost
sounding a wee bit conspiratorial)
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Brad Guth
Contributor “palsing” has been telling us:
“Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
solar system being captured by Sirius, because to me it honestly
doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, the million plus year exposure and
the fact that we’re still not headed away from Sirius, plus there’s
simply no telling where that Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to
begin with as of 260+ million years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become
sufficient escape velocity with the current reduced mass and
sufficient distance, although all things Sirius didn’t always
represent such little influence, not that our trajectory or velocity
seems sufficient anyway.
With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should have to suggest a fair
number of rogue planets exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9 WDs
within our galaxy that were initially of equal or greater mass than
our sun, and if given on average only one surviving planet per WD is a
whopping 30e9 rogue planets (some w/moons) that had to go somewhere.
I would have to think the average number of surviving planets is
something more like 2 or 3 per WD, and our latest IR spectrum
telescopes should manage to detect those as large or larger than Venus
which so happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though even Earth at 128 mw/m2
shouldn’t be all that invisible, although the minimal heat flow from
our physically dark moon at perhaps 8<16 mw/m2 could be tough to
detect, especially if its thick crust were to become icy (say covered
by 64 km of ice and carbon buckyballs) should manage to further
insulate and keep that average heat flux well below 8 mw/m2, which is
still relatively hot compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps
offering at most 0.1 mw/m2 (including IR & UV).
Apparently there’s also a few black holes of <1e9 Ms going rogue, as
headed away from their galactic cores which likely had multiple ultra
massive <1e10 Ms BHs interacting, so perhaps these too are dragging a
few spare solar systems along for the intergalactic ride, and there’s
no telling where those fast moving items will eventually end up. I
can imagine that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could manage to spare and
thus shed multiple rogue BHs that have since been on their way to
becoming either pup-galaxies of their own, or should eventually
encounter and merge with whatever is in their path. For all we know,
Andromeda has tossed a few of those BH suckers our way, and perhaps by
the time we know with any certainty it’ll already be too late.
Not to continually nitpick this pesky capture thing, however, besides
our reddish icy Sedna that’s not going away (even though it should),
there’s also the likes of 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km
diameter, as perhaps worth at most 1.5e18 kg that’s still hanging with
us all the way out to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s offering a pathetic
tidal radii gravity binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and obviously
even it is not going away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.
It seems this is representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as got the
Sirius grip as having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us,
not to mention that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically
down-sized mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much
exactly as any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
That original mass ratio as offering a gravity tidal binding force and
subsequent capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something
near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work with, and
there’s still no objective way of telling how close we actually were
to begin with.
Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
expected.
For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
the previous estimate of 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
down, or a thousand years if it were constant at the same 1r starting
velocity. The average cloud density that needs to include those
terrific stellar CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps
exceeding 1e7/cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME
stuff to start off with.
In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
sec) of Sedna, and its kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems rather
impressive. So what’s the special voodoo of conditional physics
that's keeping our interaction with Sirius down to such a dull roar,
especially from way back when the Sirius molecular/nebula threat used
to be worth <3e37 kg?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414224102AAxaj50
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
In other words, how can something like Sedna and even those more
extreme items remain attracted to and thus captured by our sun when
they each have excessive escape velocity as is, while at the same time
our sun supposedly can’t be attracted to or much less tidal captured
by Sirius that started out worth <3e37 kg? (the escape velocity at
1024 ly = 20.33 km/sec, or 81.3 km/sec if that were us parked right
next to its 64 ly radii molecular/nebula cloud)
Perhaps it’s because of their voodoo conditional physics that I still
Brad Guth
tidal binding and subsequent capture of our solar system that took
Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended or at least sucker-punched by
Andromeda, because everything out there (including rogue intergalactic
stuff) is in orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great
anything Alan Guth has figured out, or otherwise being held tight by
as I can tell, it’s simply impossible to remain as isolated and
independently rogue forever, because sooner or later something else
gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and trajectories get
within the many possibilities, and unfortunately Andromeda isn’t the
only item that’s closing in on us, just like ours is not the only
galaxy headed into The Great Attractor.
According to our Sam Wormley:
"Bound" implies elliptical orbits between two stars, i.e., the
orbital eccentricity < 1. For eccentricity > 1, i.e., hyperbolic
orbits, any two bodies are not "bound" to each other even
though they have gravitational influence on each other.
: The sun didn't have to escape, because it was never bound to
: any other star. Hyperbolic trajectories are one time encounters.
Thanks for that constructive feedback and better use of words to go
along with your faith-based approved denial and obfuscation policy.
Too bad that you and other parrots still can’t muster up any 3D
interactive orbital simulations to shock and awe the rest of us into
submission, so that we can make a few well educated adjustments and
otherwise easily go back and forward in time, just like JPL does all
the time with captured satellites or whatever plans of getting new
missions captured while utilizing the least amount of energy.
Hyperbolic trajectories are typically escape trajectories unless
there’s a third significant body involved, however it doesn’t seem as
though our solar system has ever managed to entirely escape Sirius,
unless it’s just recently getting to that point because of the great
amounts of mass reductions is what allows our existing velocity to
escape whatever amount of mass remains associated with those Sirius
stars. The more likely conventional Kepler elliptical captured orbit
is what I believe we’re still dealing with, and is there really any
doubt as to what sort of million plus year gravitational influence a
3e37 kg body of molecular/nebula mass is going to have on our nearby
solar system?
Try to remember, unless there were preexisting gravity seeds or
external causations via nearby supernova compressions, it was likely a
good million some odd years before those Sirius stars managed to
emerge and proceed to blow all else away. Even a 1e37 kg molecular/
nebula mass and its 50 ly radii can't be all that insignificant when
you're parked right next to it, or conceivably even a little into it,
and only worse yet if our galactic orbital trajectory were less than
parallel and closing the gap.
Escape Velocity (did we always have enough escape velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Are you still suggesting that captures are impossible? (because team
km/sec) of Sedna, and the kinetic energy difference of 154:1 seems
rather impressive. So what’s the special voodoo of conditional
physics that's keeping our interaction with Sirius down to such a dull
roar, especially way back when a million years exposure to the Sirius
molecular/nebula threat used to be worth <3e37 kg?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100414224102AAxaj50
In other words, how can something like Sedna and even more extreme
ranging items as having such excessive escape velocity remain
attracted to and thus captured by our sun, while at the same time we
are to believe that our sun supposedly can’t be attracted to or much
less bound/captured by Sirius that started out nearby as worth <3e37
kg?
~ BG
Brad Guth
Or if you prefer to use the “Cosmological Ice Ages”, because that also
works for Henry Kroll and myself. It seems long period double/triple
stars are not actually all that uncommon nor without their ability of
capturing another nearby star, especially while in their initial proto-
star molecular/nebula cloud phase that can last a good million plus
years is what puts celestial mechanics at risk.
Sirius Escape Velocity (did our solar system always have enough escape
velocity?)
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Offering a direct analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s
captured within our solar system is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg, of
an exotic reddish mineral saturated icy planetoid that can’t seem to
get away from the past any better than our solar system is keeping
itself away from Sirius.
On Oct 18, 8:35 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Sedna's orbital eccentricity about the sun is 0.8527 which
: makes it an elliptical orbit bound to the sun. Sirius does
: NOT have a closed orbit with the sun. The Earth's tug on the
: sun is more than a million times stronger than that of Sirius
: or any other star.
Sedna at 76 AU has more than 550 times the required escape velocity,
and yet it's still here, when by your own rules of mainstream peer
accepted orbital mechanics, it shouldn't be.
Orbital eccentricity velocity of Sedna (12.4:1)
942 AU 374 m/sec (actual escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (actual escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously icy Sedna has been moving itself along at better than 150
fold faster than the required escape velocity at its furthest
elliptical trajectory, and otherwise it’s moving at better than 550
fold faster escape velocity than required at its nearest. So why
doesn’t Sedna just sail off into the wild black yonder?
Last time I’d checked, the Sirius collective mass was still worth
considerably more than Sedna, and its concentration or collective mass
only gets much worse as we go back in time, such as prior to its
considerable molecular/nebula cloud getting blown away is when that
collective mass was worth <3e37 kg.
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem, as of our solar
system nowadays that’s supposedly closing in at the radial velocity of
-7.6 km/sec, thereby we’re capable of escaping whatever Sirius has to
offer, unless those trajectory estimates of proper celestial motion
are way the hell off and those same voodoo escape velocity physics
don’t apply. However, in the beginning as of 260 million years ago
when all things Sirius for more than a million years represented a
terrific molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37 kg, is when our rogue
solar system independence or freedom from all things Sirius should
have been technically impossible (even at 128 light years = 57.5 km/
sec, or if you like using 1024 ly = 20+ km/sec might suggest that we
simply never had the rogue independence that we’ve been systematically
indoctrinated about).
Of course it would also have been nice if our solar system had been at
least running parallel or ideally somewhat away from Sirius, but sadly
that hasn’t been the case. Instead we have two inner galactic orbital
trajectories getting modified as each closes in on one another, and
that’s pretty much exactly as the Sedna elliptical eccentricity path
manages to survive its multiple encounters within 76 AU of our sun, as
somehow never losing its tidal bound association in spite of Sedna
always having 550 times more than sufficient escape velocity, and
otherwise Sedna never had any horrific molecular/nebula cloud mass to
begin with. In other words, Sedna always had way more than sufficient
escape velocity, and yet it’s still with us.
Obviously the all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding of
whatever’s remaining of nebula/molecular or stellar CME gas that’s
likely held within 1 ly, plus whatever its local Oort cloud of dark
and icy debris should by rights of orbital mechanics no longer
maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, no such
luck, perhaps for the same voodoo reasons why Sedna and other far
reaching Oort cloud items are not able to escape our solar system is
perhaps the very same reason why our solar system can’t entirely avoid
the deep elliptical association that had been previously established
with Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong or voodooish about
the conditional physics of Newtonian orbital mechanics, or we are in
fact stuck with orbiting Sirius even at its greatly reduced mass, for
the same reason Sedna with its way more than sufficient escape
velocity is stuck with orbiting our sun. This is actually a very good
analogy of orbital eccentricity that has powers far above that of
Newtonian orbital mechanics.
Brad Guth
represented by Sirius, then by all means we should not have held onto
the elliptical tidal radii that’s represented by Sedna and other
similar elliptical companions the exceed escape velocity. So what’s
wrong or voodoo conditional with orbital mechanics?
Is there another pervasive or dominate factor of dark matter or dark
energy that Newtonian orbital mechanics simply can’t deal with?
Contributor “palsing” has been telling us:
“Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
Firstly, I have to totally agree that a number of items within our
solar system are those captured, but we’ll just have to see about that
“mathematical impossibility” of our solar system being captured by
Sirius, because to me it honestly doesn’t seem as so insurmountably
impossible for our solar system to have been captured, especially
considering the nearby original molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, the
million plus year exposure and the fact that we’re still not headed
away from Sirius, plus there’s simply no telling where that Sirius
molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million years
ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become sufficient escape velocity with the
current reduced mass and sufficient distance, although all things
Sirius didn’t always represent such little influence, not that our
trajectory or velocity seems sufficient anyway.
With <6% of stars being recorded as white dwarfs should have to
suggest a fair number of rogue planets exist, because that’s
suggesting <30e9 WDs within our galaxy that were initially of equal or
mostly greater mass than our sun, and if given on average only one
surviving planet per WD is suggesting a whopping 30e9 rogue planets
(some w/moons) that had to go somewhere. I would have to think the
average number of surviving planets is something more likely 3 or 4
per WD, and our latest IR spectrum telescopes should manage to detect
those rogue items as large or greater than Venus which so happens to
emit 20.5 w/m2, though even Earth at 128 mw/m2 shouldn’t be all that
invisible, although the minimal heat flow from our physically dark
moon at perhaps 8<16 mw/m2 could be a little tough to detect because
of its smaller size and especially if its thick crust were to become
icy (say covered by 64 km of ice and carbon buckyballs) should manage
to further insulate and keep that average heat flux well below 8 mw/
m2, which is still relatively hot compared to the surrounding ISM of
perhaps offering at most 0.1 mw/m2 (including IR & UV).
Apparently there’s also a few black holes of <1e9 Ms going rogue, as
headed away from their galactic cores which likely had multiple ultra
massive <1e10 Ms BHs interacting, so perhaps these too are likely
dragging a few spare solar systems along for the intergalactic ride,
and there’s no telling where those fast moving items will eventually
end up. I can imagine that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could manage to
spare and thus shed multiple rogue BHs that have since been on their
way towards becoming either pup-galaxies of their own, or should
eventually encounter and merge with whatever is in their path. For
all we know, Andromeda has tossed a few of those BHs or neutron stars
our way, and perhaps by the time we know with any certainty it’ll
already be too late.
Not to continually nitpick at this pesky capture thing, however,
besides our reddish icy Sedna that’s not going away (even though it
should), there’s also the likes of 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of
112 km diameter, as perhaps worth at most 1.5e18 kg that’s still
hanging with us all the way out to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s offering
a pathetic tidal radii binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and obviously
even it is not going away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.
It seems this is representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as having
nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we
seem to be headed back towards that drastically down-sized mass at 7.6
km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any
elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
That original mass ratio as offering a gravity tidal binding or
elliptical bound force as the subsequent capture link between Sol and
Sirius, as such used to have something near 4.28e6 fold as much mass
as it has nowadays to work with, and there’s still no objective way of
telling how close we actually were to begin with.
Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
expected.
For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly to start with, and in order to
disperse that volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is
going to require that cloud radii to increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and
that’s worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/
sec (not the previous estimate of 3000 km/sec that I’d once
suggested).
In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
down, or given a thousand years if it were constant at the same 1r
starting velocity. The average cloud density that needs to include
those terrific stellar CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3
(clumps exceeding 1e7/cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus
whatever CME stuff to start off with.
In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
years after those new stars started pushing away their remainder/
surplus volume of molecular/nebula mass, the radii will have increased
by only 6.4e4 ly (with us pretty much situated dead center), and when
given 260 million years offers 16.64e6 ly as long as the exit velocity
remained unchanged. However, at most the Sirius molecular cloud radii
has likely expanded something less than a million light years out, and
never the less we’re situated pretty much dead center within that
expanding molecular/nebula sphere that’s probably making the exact
same red-shifted noise as the CMBR.
At 64 ly to start off with (as if our solar system were situated
initially just outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud),
whereas that’s only looking at our receiving a thousand fold more
proton density and getting traumatized by roughly 32 times the average
solar CME velocity that our own sun tosses at us, and I’d bet that
it’s also at the very least twice as hot and kept UV saturated as well
as representing a sustained molecular interaction that’s going to
affect our terrestrial environment for a good thousand years, because
that’s exactly what progenitor stars do if not worse things to their
surroundings.
Perhaps by the time that molecular/nebula cloud doubles its first
radii (2r and say 2500 years from the initial stellar fusion kickoff)
the molecular exit velocity will have subsided down to the dull roar
of roughly half of its initial 1r shockwave velocity that took roughly
the first thousand years to initially accomplish, and at 4r could
become half that of the 2r exit velocity due to the core and other
half (1.5e37 kg) portion of molecular/nebula as still representing
significant gravity that’s directly behind and always working as an
unfocused weak force against cloud expansion, as well as the initial
stellar fusion backing off. This method might suggest as little as
having 10000 km/sec available at 2r, then falling off to 5000 km/sec
at 4r, 2500 km/sec at 8r and perhaps only 312 km/sec at 64r (4096 ly).
I’ll likely have to further research and run through these numbers a
few more times, as well as having to revise my topic in order to suit
what I’d like to interpret, but you should at least get the basic gist
of what this topic means and the implications as to this nearby event
and subsequent cosmic evolution of Sirius having affected our local
environment, starting as of roughly 260 million years ago.
In other words, it’s probably not a coincidence of random happenstance
that Sirius emerged and UV illuminated us at roughly the exact same
time as our global environment and a few other considerations about
our solar system changed forever. There’s even a good chance that the
terrific Sirius UV illumination was for a time every bit as great as
that of what our sun was providing. In other words to plants and some
animals that respond to UV, we had two suns illuminating us.
Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the
mainstream status-quo day, because even at 1024 light years requires
20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order that our solar system to stay
clear of being influenced by any such 3e37 kg mass of a nearby
molecular/nebula cloud. Of course that also requires that we’re
either running at least parallel or much less not heading into it or
being overtaken. Gee whiz, as is what could possibly go wrong?
The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
distance, however especially capture worthy when our galactic mass is
Perhaps it’s because of their voodoo conditional physics is why I
still can’t grasp their form of mainstream conditional reality that
gets to exclude or obfuscate whatever rocks their public funded fleet
of boats.
Did our solar system always have enough escape velocity?
http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
Offering a direct analogy of a stable elliptical orbit that’s
captured within our solar system is that of Sedna/90377 ~ 3e21 kg, of
an exotic reddish mineral saturated icy planetoid that can’t seem to
get away from the past any better than our solar system is keeping
itself away from Sirius.
Orbital trek velocity of Sedna (12.4:1)
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 2.379 m/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 8.375 m/sec)
Obviously Sedna is moving itself along at better than 150 fold faster
than the required escape velocity at its furthest elliptical
trajectory, and otherwise it’s moving at better than 550 fold faster
escape velocity than required at its nearest. So why doesn’t Sedna
just sail off into the wild black yonder?
Last time I’d checked, the Sirius collective mass was worth
considerably more than Sedna, and the Sirius mass only gets much worse
as we go back in time, such as prior to its considerable molecular/
nebula cloud getting blown away.
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
As you can plainly see there’s supposedly no problem, as of our solar
system nowadays that’s supposedly closing in at the radial velocity of
-7.6 km/sec, thereby we’re supposedly escaping whatever Sirius has to
offer unless those trajectory estimates of proper motion are simply
way the hell off. However, in the beginning as of 260 million years
earlier when all things Sirius for more than a million years
represented a terrific molecular/nebula cloud worth <3e37 kg, is when
our rogue solar system independence or freedom from all things Sirius
should have been technically impossible (even at 128 light years =
57.5 km/sec, or if you like to ponder 1024 ly = 20+ km/sec might
suggest that we never had the independence that we’ve been
systematically indoctrinated about).
Of course it would be nice if our solar system had been at least
running as parallel or ideally somewhat away from Sirius trajectory,
but sadly that hasn’t been the case. Instead we have two orbital
trajectories getting modified as each closes in on one another, and
that’s pretty much exactly as the Sedna elliptical path manages to
survive its multiple encounters within 76 AU of our sun, as somehow
never losing its tidal radii bound association in spite of Sedna
always having more than sufficient escape velocity. In other words;
what the hell is holding onto Sedna?
Obviously the current all-inclusive mass of Sirius and its surrounding
of whatever’s remaining of nebula/molecular gas that’s held within 1
ly, plus whatever its local Oort cloud of dark and icy debris should
no longer maintain its original grip on our solar system. However, no
such luck, perhaps for the same voodoo physics reasons why Sedna and
other far reaching Oort cloud items are not able to escape our solar
system is perhaps the very same reason why our solar system can’t
entirely avoid the deep elliptical association that had been
previously established with Sirius.
So, either there’s something absolutely dead wrong or voodooish about
the physics of orbital mechanics, or we are in fact stuck with
orbiting Sirius even at its greatly reduced mass, for the same reason
Sedna with its way more than sufficient escape velocity is stuck with
orbiting our sun as though it’s being electrically and/or magnetically
attracted, because it sure as hell isn’t being held by gravity.
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Sam Wormley
> If our solar system is supposedly not bound by the gravitational force
> represented by Sirius, then by all means we should not have held onto
> similar elliptical companions the exceed escape velocity.
Brad--You do not understand celestial mechanics. You can fix that
with considerable self-education. But I doubt that you want to, for
you must think it fun for all these USENET responses pointing out
that you don't understand what you are posting about.
Sedna, by virtue of an orbital eccentricity of 0.8527 can NEVER
escape the solar system without a major interaction by another
body of just the right nature. It ain't gonna happen, Brad.
Brad Guth
> On 10/19/10 11:44 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > If our solar system is supposedly not bound by the gravitational force
> > represented by Sirius, then by all means we should not have held onto
> > similar elliptical companions the exceed escape velocity.
>
> Brad--You do not understand celestial mechanics. You can fix that
> with considerable self-education. But I doubt that you want to, for
> you must think it fun for all these USENET responses pointing out
> that you don't understand what you are posting about.
>
> Sedna, by virtue of an orbital eccentricity of 0.8527 can NEVER
> escape the solar system without a major interaction by another
> body of just the right nature. It ain't gonna happen, Brad.
I never said Sedna would leave, other than going by what that
dysfunctional escape calculator had been reporting, that is obviously
now fixed, all because of little old me.
For now I'll have to modify and/or exclude my use of Sedna as an
example for considering why we're bound to that Sirius star system,
which hasn't changed one damn bit unless you got more data to share
that isn't as intentionally dysfunctional as that Escape Velocity
calculator that you and contributor "palsing" had me using.
I shall edit and republish to suit, as focused upon the orbital
dynamics of our solar system that perturbs Sirius on our very long way
around. You could help, but I'm certain you'd only get fired or
something worse.
~ BG
~ BG
Sam Wormley
V_e = √(2GM/r)
You don't need somebody else's calculator Brad! Why you didn't
check the calculation is beyond me.
Brad Guth
On-line stuff seems easier and quicker. Obviously it's not always
correct until I put them to the test. Meanwhile, we're still
associated with Sirius because the past was different.
Orbital eccentricity velocity of Sedna (12.4:1)
942 AU 374 m/sec (escape velocity = 1.376 km/sec)
76 AU 4640 m/sec (escape velocity = 4.846 km/sec)
If we can’t ever get rid of Sedna due to Newtonian gravity and the
related escape velocity, then how is it even remotely possible for
Sirius to get rid of our solar system? Last time I’d checked, the
Sirius collective mass was still worth considerably more than Sedna,
and its concentration or collective mass only gets much worse as we go
back in time, such as prior to its considerable molecular/nebula cloud
getting blown away is when that collective mass was worth <3e37 kg.
Sirius at <7e30 kg and 8.6 ly offers an escape velocity of only 107.2
m/sec.
Sirius at <3e37 kg and 64 ly, escape velocity becomes worth 81.3 km/
sec.
http://www.wsanford.com/~wsanford/calculators/gravity-calculator.html
Using 2e30 kg
Sedna at 3e21 kg & 942 AU = 2.013e13 N
Sirius at 7e30 kg & 8.6 Ly = 1.411e17 N
That’s only a 7000 fold greater force of attraction by Sirius as
opposed to what Sedna represents, plus we’re headed towards Sirius at
7.6 km/sec isn’t exactly helping to keep our solar system away from
what could pass within as little as one light year. There’s also
another Oort cloud icy sub-planetoid (2005-VX3) worth 1.71e9 N, so
that’s only 82.5e6:1 less Newtonian force than represented by the
current mass and distance of Sirius. On previous thawing cycles the
mass of Sirius was also a little greater and getting a little closer
(conceivably a lot closer plus even our solar system was ever so
slightly (.0005%) more massive as of 125k BP). In other words, stars
and solar systems are not forever, whereas at some point the majority
become white dwarfs w/o planets, and some further demise as a nova or
supernova and essentially vanish with only their dust blowing in the
wind, so to speak. So far, within recorded history we’ve been
extremely lucky, but that luck could change as it did 260 million
years ago, and again 60 some odd million years ago and then roughly as
of 13,000 years ago.
What if Sedna gets a little further perturbed by something passing by,
or from the alignment of Saturn and Jupiter?
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Sirus A+B
See:
http://www.google.com/search?q=(2+*+5.6E30+kg+*+G+%2F+8.6+light+years)+%5E+.5
Brad Guth
> You have to take into account the gravitaional mass of
> Sirus A+B
>
You also have to take into account the molecular/nebula cloud mass of
<3e37 kg, the distance and amount of exposure time being worth a
million years.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
How can you be so naive as think there is 15 million solar masses
of gas and dust in our stellar neighborhood, Brad. You're just pulling
shit from your ass.
Brad Guth
The past did exist, even though you obviously don't think so.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Try not to live in the past, Brad. Think about what our local
neighborhood is like right now. When I say right now I mean in the
last 10-100 years, i.e., what we can see 10-100 light years out
from us.
I am, of course, acknowledging that we see everything in the
past due to the finite speed of light and gravity. We see Barnard's
Star as it was 4.91 years ago.
Brad Guth
Nice try. (was it approved by rabbi Saul Levy?)
~ BG
Brad Guth
deal of mass and put out a lot of energy, though mostly it’s of the
less than c velocity kind and of a spectrum that we can’t see or even
feel while protected on Earth (few if any of us have ever directly
seen or felt a CME), as well as every star is offering the sorts of
terrific magnetic and electrostatic forces that also goes unnoticed by
most of us that really don’t care how good or bad our sun is acting.
Even our nearby solar gravity is relatively negligible and I’m
thinking not entirely what’s holding onto the likes of Sedna or
Sirius, because there’s also the extended amount of time exposure to
the forces of other gravity and at least a couple other worthy forces
that accounts for something, especially as we go back in time and look
critically at what alignments and the tremendous associated molecular/
nebula mass that clearly existed nearby and for an extended period of
time.
Double the mass of any given star and it puts out <30 fold as much
energy, but then it doesn’t last but as little as 1/60th the time.
Sirius(B) had to get rid of 2.5e12 tonnes/sec within 200 million or
fewer years, whereas our sun had only needed to shed >3.5e9 tonnes/sec
within the past 5 billion years (>4e9 tonnes/sec if you like using
4.5e9 years). Stars that started off bigger than the progenitor worth
of Sirius(B), such as those >10<300 Ms, are not going to exist for
long before terminating or finalizing in one of several nasty ways
that are never good for the neighborhood. Fortunately, most stars are
not much greater mass than our sun, as well as there’s a lot of red
and brown dwarfs plus by now there’s >128 billions of significant
(Ceres or larger) rogue items within or galaxy that are not even thus
far accounted for until JW Webb gets up and running, whereas within a
10% volume survey I’d expect the estimated mass of our galaxy and
thereby further extrapolating on behalf of the known universe to grow
by a factor of at least 10.
There’s also FTL stuff to consider in addition to those even faster
gravity forces.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=faster-than-light-electric-currents-2010-06-18
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0399
The mass, density and radius of Earth = 9.8 m/s/s, as such it doesn’t
take any Einstein to figure out that gravity can rather easily exceed
the speed of light, such as with whatever a neutron star has to offer
=>3e11 fold greater pull than Earth, or that’s 3e12 m/s/s (ten
thousand times faster than light), and we’re not even talking about
black holes. Possibly gravity is worth c2 (<9e16 m/s) or infinitely
faster. Therefore, exactly how much of our galaxy is going to remain
as stealth/invisible to us is yet to be contemplated, much less if
ever detected within existing technology.
Gravity isn’t as weak of force as we’ve been told, perhaps mostly
because it’s continuous and measured in Newtons per second, and with
time that amount of force really adds up, even over great distances
where very large volumes of molecular/nebula gas become a sufficiently
concentrated amount of mass to contend with. Our solar system doesn’t
really care if it’s a supermassive black hole source of gravity or
that of a vast molecular cloud, because the affect upon our solar
system is exactly the same. Unfortunately, even though galaxies have
collided, merged or interacted in various ways with one another, most
astrophysics and cosmology types are simply unwilling to look at the
past if it in any way affects our past, current of future existence.
~ BG
On Oct 12, 12:32 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps our solar system could not avoid Sirius any better than our
> Milky Way can avoid getting rear-ended by Andromeda, because
> everything out there (including rogue intergalactic stuff) is in
> orbit around something, even if it’s just “The Great Attractor” as a
> cosmic wormhole. It’s simply impossible to remain as isolated and
> independently rogue forever, because sooner or later something else
> gets within range of the mutual tidal radii and trajectories get
> unavoidably revised, including captured being within the many
> possibilities.
>
> Contributor “palsing” tells us:
> “Captures are possible, of course; many of the solar system's moons,
> after all, are captures... but I AM saying that a capture specifically
> between Sirius and our solar system is a mathematical impossibility.”
>
> We’ll just have to see about that “mathematical impossibility” of our
> solar system being captured by Sirius, because to me it honestly
> doesn’t seem as so insurmountably impossible for our solar system to
> have been captured, especially considering the nearby original
> molecular/nebula mass of <3e37 kg, and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, plus there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago. 7.6 km/sec may have become sufficient escape velocity with
> the current reduced mass and sufficient distance, although all things
> Sirius didn’t always represent such little influence.
>
> With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should have to suggest a fair
> number of rogue planets exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9 WDs
> within our galaxy that were initially of equal or greater mass than
> our sun, and if given on average only one surviving planet per WD is a
> whopping 30e9 rogue planets (some w/moons) that had to go somewhere.
> I would have to think the average number of surviving planets is
> something more like 2 or 3 per WD, and our latest IR spectrum
> telescopes should manage to detect those as large or larger than Venus
> which so happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though even Earth at 128 mw/m2
> shouldn’t be all that invisible, although the heat flow from our
> physically dark moon at perhaps 8<16 mw/m2 could be tough to detect,
> especially if its thick crust were to become icy (say covered by 64 km
> of ice and carbon buckyballs) should manage to further insulate and
> keep that average heat flux well below 10 mw/m2, which is still
> relatively hot compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps offering at
> most 0.1 mw/m2 (including IR & UV).
>
> Apparently there’s also a few black holes of <1e9 Ms going rogue,
> headed away from their galactic core which likely had multiple ultra
> massive <1e10 Ms BHs interacting, so perhaps these too are dragging a
> few spare solar systems along for the intergalactic ride, and there’s
> no telling where those items will eventually end up. I can imagine
> that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could manage to spare and thus shed
> multiple rogue BHs that have been on their way to becoming either pup-
> galaxies of their own, or should eventually merge with whatever is in
> their path. For all we know, Andromeda has tossed a few of those BH
> suckers on way.
>
> Not to continually nitpick this capture thing, however, besides our
> reddish icy Sedna that’s not going away, there’s also the likes of
> 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter, as perhaps worth
> at most 1.5e18 kg that’s still hanging with us all the way out to
> 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s offering a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and obviously even it is not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip. It seems this is
> representing a current Sirius:XV3 ratio as got the Sirius grip as
> having nearly 8.3e7:1 greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention
> that we seem to be headed back towards that drastically down-sized
> mass at 7.6 km/s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as
> any elliptical Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That original mass ratio as offering a gravity binding force and
> subsequent tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have
> something near 4.28e6 fold as much mass as it has nowadays to work
> with, and there’s still no objective way of telling how close we
> actually were to begin with.
>
> Ongoing corrections and somewhat better math:
> Apparently a stellar and planet producing molecular/nebula cloud
> doesn’t get blown away from the initial fusion of its protostar(s) any
> too slowly. Instead it’s more likely a soft nova taking place within
> the first cloud radii, and as such the initial cloud expansion and the
> subsequent 1r(64 ly) exit velocity of <20,000 km/sec could be
> expected.
>
> For example, the estimated 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud that gave
> birth to those nearby Sirius protostars of at least 12.5 Ms, likely
> had their cloud radii of at least 64 ly, and in order to disperse that
> volume of mass within any reasonable amount of time is going to
> require that cloud radii increase by roughly 0.1%/yr, and that’s
> worth .064 ly or 6.05e11 km/year, which works out to 19184 km/sec (not
> the previous 3000 km/sec that I’d previously suggested).
>
> In order to double that cloud radius from 64 to 128 ly, at a starting
> velocity of 19,184 km/sec takes roughly another 1500 years as it slows
> down, or a thousand years if constant at the same starting velocity.
> The average cloud density that needs to include those terrific stellar
> CMEs is likely going to become worth >1e4/cm3 (clumps exceeding 1e6/
> cm3) of rather nicely heated molecular plus whatever CME stuff to
> start off with.
>
> In other words, if using a constant outflux velocity and a million
> years after those new stars started pushing away their remainder/
> surplus volume of molecular/nebula mass, the radii will have increased
> by only 6.4e4 ly (with us pretty much situated dead center), and when
> given 260 million years offers 16.64e6 ly as long as the exit velocity
> remained unchanged. However, at most the Sirius molecular cloud radii
> has likely expanded something less than a million light years out, and
> never the less we’re situated pretty much dead center within that
> expanding molecular/nebua sphere that’s probably making the exact same
> red-shifted noise as the CMBR.
>
> At 64 ly to start off with (as if our solar system were situated
> initially just outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud),
> whereas that’s only looking at our receiving a thousand fold more
> proton density and traumatized by roughly 32 times the average solar
> CME velocity that our own sun tosses at us, and I’d bet that it’s also
> at the very least twice as hot and kept UV saturated as well as
> representing a sustained molecular interaction that’s going to affect
> our terrestrial environment for a good thousand years.
>
> Perhaps by the time that molecular/nebula cloud doubles its first
> radii (2r and 2500 years from the initial stellar fusion kickoff) the
> molecular exit velocity will have subsided down to the dull roar of
> roughly half of its initial 1r shockwave velocity that took roughly
> the first thousand years to initially accomplish, and at 4r could
> become half that of the 2r exit velocity due to the core and other
> half (1.5e37 kg) portion of molecular/nebula as gravity that’s
> directly behind and always working as an unfocused weak force against
> cloud expansion, as well as the initial stellar fusion backing off.
> This method might suggest as little as having 10000 km/sec available
> at 2r, then falling off to 5000 km/sec at 4r, 2500 km/sec at 8r and
> only 312 km/sec at 64r (4096 ly).
>
> I’ll likely have to further research and run through these numbers a
> few more times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit what I’d
> like to interpret, but you should at least get the basic gist of what
> this means and the implications as to this nearby event and subsequent
> cosmic evolution having affected our local environment, starting as of
> roughly 260 million years ago.
>
> In other words, it’s probably not a coincidence of random happenstance
> that Sirius emerged and UV illuminated us at roughly the exact same
> time as our global environment and a few other considerations about
> our solar system changed forever. There’s even a good chance that the
> terrific Sirius UV illumination was for a time every bit as great as
> that of what our sun was providing.
>
> Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the
> mainstream status-quo day, because even at 1024 light years requires
> 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order to stay clear of being influenced
> by any such 3e37 kg mass of a molecular/nebula cloud. Of course that
> also requires that we’re either running at least parallel or much less
> not heading into it or being overtaken. Gee whiz, as is what could
> possibly go wrong?
>
> http://www.calctool.org/CALC/phys/astronomy/escape_velocity
>
> The Andromeda galaxy at <2e42 kg and a radii of <7.5e4 light years
> will become worth ~300 km/s escape velocity at 500,000 light years
> distance, especially when our galactic mass is added into the formula,
> which of course only works to our advantage if we’re not headed
> towards or being overtaken, because the closer we get the greater that
> escape velocity requirement becomes. So, if we don’t get nailed by
> Andromeda on this pass, sure thing the next time around isn’t going to
> be so lucky.
>
> In the case of Sirius, the available mass is hardly worth anything
> compared to what it started out as <3e37 kg, so we’re gradually losing
> our orbital attachment or capture by Sirius, and that’s a very good
> thing unless you’re into perpetual doom and gloom predictions.
>
> ~ BG
Brad Guth
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0399
>
> The mass, density and radius of Earth = 9.8 m/s/s, as such it doesn’t
> take any Einstein to figure out that gravity can rather easily exceed
> the speed of light, such as with whatever a neutron star has to offer
> =>3e11 fold greater pull than Earth, or that’s 3e12 m/s/s (ten
> thousand times faster than light), and we’re not even talking about
> black holes. Possibly gravity is worth c2 (<9e16 m/s) or infinitely
> faster. Therefore, exactly how much of our galaxy is going to remain
> as stealth/invisible to us is yet to be contemplated, much less if
> ever detected within existing technology.
>
> Gravity isn’t as weak of force as we’ve been told, perhaps mostly
> because it’s continuous and measured in Newtons per second, and with
> time that amount of force really adds up, even over great distances
> where very large volumes of molecular/nebula gas become a sufficiently
> concentrated amount of mass to contend with. Our solar system doesn’t
> really care if it’s a supermassive black hole source of gravity or
> that of a vast molecular cloud, because the affect upon our solar
> system is exactly the same. Unfortunately, even though galaxies have
> collided, merged or interacted in various ways with one another, most
> astrophysics and cosmology types are simply unwilling to look at the
> past if it in any way affects our past, current of future existence.
>
> ~ BG
As a terrific molecular/nebula cloud creates fast burning stars like
Sirius(B) that goes from bad to worse in a relatively short period of
time, emulating a soft/slow nova as it quickly consumes itself, as
well as getting rid of considerable mass as it converts from its red
supergiant phase into the final remainder as a white dwarf, is when
having more than a few light years separation is a seriously good
idea, as well as your planet having a thick/robust atmosphere is also
going to come in real handy.
Sirius(B) of roughly 260 million years old is likely classified as a
medium-large white dwarf, as having converted or main sequenced itself
down from >8.5 Ms (possibly 9+) should have been an impressive sight
to behold. There are apparently a few extremely large supernovas like
“SN 2007if” suggesting an extra-massive white dwarf had exceed 2 Ms,
and those sorts of Wolf Rayet stars might have started out as worth
16<32 Ms. Supposedly anything as small and >1.44 Ms is supposed to
become a neutron star that should remain stable, so it’s somewhat
uncertain what happened.
SN 2007if offers further speculation of a possible binary or as
having rogue white dwarfs combining into creating a supernova, forming
into what otherwise requires a WD of 2.1 Ms. Possibly the Wolf Rayet
star that likely started off as a 30 Ms will become a maximum unstable
WD of <2 Ms.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/03/mystery-of-how-white-dwarf-star-system-could-exceed-mass-limit.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%E2%80%93Rayet_star
The likes of Wolf Rayet (WR-124/M1-67) most certainly can’t be very
old, as perhaps only worth a few million years, possibly as young as
2.5e6 years (a tenth the age of Sirius), and thus when given just
2.5e6 years as having to lose <6.36e14 tonnes/sec is going to sustain
a rather considerable solar wind and packing enough density that’ll
affect most anything within several light years.
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/astronomy/wolraysta.html
Some WR stars start off as worth <100 Ms, which sort of makes
Sirius(B) as having been kind of a minor pup version at ~9 Ms and
perhaps triggered towards the end by consuming Sirius(C). As long as
Sirius(B) never merges with or draws significant mass away from
Sirius(A), we got nothing to worry about.
Our sun most likely started off as worth <2.6e30 kg and having lost on
average ~ 4e12 kg/sec (obviously there was more initial loss/sec, and
it’s an ongoing process that’s as of lately running at somewhat less
than losing 3e12 kg/sec, could even be down to as little as 1e12 kg/
sec). Our eventual white dwarf will likely become the size of Mars,
as worth somewhat less than medium sized at 0.25<.33 Ms (possibly
ending as great as .5 Ms, though most don’t believe it’ll ever retain
that much mass).
Just to give us some better idea about this. If our sun were having
to lose another 1.5e30 kg within the next 5 billion years requires an
average loss of 9.5e12 kg/sec. Obviously the red giant phase and the
final demise of converting into a white dwarf is when the vast bulk of
stellar mass has to be let go, and the exact same thing happened for
Sirius(B), except much worse because of its original mass and the much
shorter timeline.
Mainstream published astronomy and K12 taught astrophysics would
suggest that our sun is currently losing at most only 4e9 kg/sec,
however at that passive rate it’ll take 4.5 trillion years to
sufficiently deplete itself in order to turn into a red giant before
ever becoming the 0.25<.5 Ms white dwarf, and most of us should
realize that kind of main sequence process is not going to take nearly
that much time. However, perhaps using the stellar mass loss average
of <4e9 tonnes/sec works about right, or at the very conservative
least using the average mass reduction average of 3.5e9 tonnes/sec
should not be excluded.
Either way, it’s looking as though our Sirius(B) was originally worth
at least 8.5<9.5 Ms, as well as having to lose an average 2.6e12
tonnes/sec, and its dynamic outflux at the red supergiant end of its
accelerated main sequence phase that was about to convert into a
stable WD, likely gave off those final red supergiant and helium
flashover solar winds of nearly 20000 km/s, which likely simmered down
to something less than a dull roar of perhaps as little as 2000 km/sec
by the time such winds interacted with our nearby solar system, and
helped to blow away whatever surviving planets that had already been
released from their original Sirius gravity binding capture, because
there’s no way any star as having been so quickly reduced to 1/8th
mass is ever going to keep its planets.
With <6% of stars reported as being white dwarfs should suggest a fair
number of rogue planets must exist, because that’s suggesting <30e9
WDs within our galaxy, and if this were given only one surviving
planet per WD is 30e9 rogue planets that had to go somewhere. When
our sun ends as a white dwarf, there well be at least 6 planets plus
all the other stuff set free, and because our sun is below average
seems to suggest that our galaxy likely has at least 1e11 rogue items
available, and that number could even be as great as 1e12 if we
included all significant rogue items of Ceres or larger.
The latest James Webb Space Telescope that’s capable of doing an
extensive IR survey should help spot and catalog these rogue and
relatively cool galactic items, as well as a few those large
intergalactic items that got pulled out by an escaping massive enough
star or rogue black hole. With a good supercomputer and loads of
trajectory data, interactive 3D orbital simulations should be capable
of suggesting where certain rogue items (including clouds of
relatively cool molecular/nebula mass) well end up. Fortunately,
>99.9999999999% of whatever’s out there will never interact with our
solar system, whereas it’s only of what the existing nearby stuff like
Sirius has yet to offer, that we may need to pay some attention in
order to better understand the past and of what’s to come.
Sam Wormley
> We are told and for the most part accept that stars represent a great
> less than c velocity kind and of a spectrum that we can�t see or even
> feel while protected on Earth (few if any of us have ever directly
> seen or felt a CME), as well as every star is offering the sorts of
> terrific magnetic and electrostatic forces that also goes unnoticed by
The radiation from a star (other than some neutrinos) is all
electromagnetic radiation from radio to gamma propagating at
the speed of light.
Sam Wormley
Of course, stars also spew out charge particles (solar wind),
which in the case of the Sun and earth takes about two days
to reach us, compared to the 8 or so minutes for the photons.
Sam Wormley
> Sirius(B) of roughly 260 million years old is likely classified as a
> medium-large white dwarf, as having converted or main sequenced itself
> down from>8.5 Ms (possibly 9+) should have been an impressive sight
> to behold. There are apparently a few extremely large supernovas like
> and those sorts of Wolf Rayet stars might have started out as worth
> 16<32 Ms.
Sirius B's progenitor was likely about 5-6 solar masses and
certainly did not produce a supernova. White dwarfs have a
maximum mass based on the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 solar
masses.
Brad Guth
> On 10/24/10 11:20 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Sirius(B) of roughly 260 million years old is likely classified as a
> > medium-large white dwarf, as having converted or main sequenced itself
> > down from>8.5 Ms (possibly 9+) should have been an impressive sight
> > to behold. There are apparently a few extremely large supernovas like
> > and those sorts of Wolf Rayet stars might have started out as worth
> > 16<32 Ms.
>
> Sirius B's progenitor was likely about 5-6 solar masses and
> certainly did not produce a supernova. White dwarfs have a
> maximum mass based on the Chandrasekhar limit of 1.44 solar
> masses.
But you and others of your kind don't believe in the past or in hell,
so how exactly would your subjective and faith-based bias count?
~ BG
Brad Guth
> On 10/24/10 9:09 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > We are told and for the most part accept that stars represent a great
> > less than c velocity kind and of a spectrum that we can’t see or even
> > feel while protected on Earth (few if any of us have ever directly
> > seen or felt a CME), as well as every star is offering the sorts of
> > terrific magnetic and electrostatic forces that also goes unnoticed by
>
> The radiation from a star (other than some neutrinos) is all
> electromagnetic radiation from radio to gamma propagating at
> the speed of light.
The vast bulk of what a star loses is CME and similar radiated stuff
(aka carbon buckyballs and whatever surplus of hydrogen and helium
plus a few heavier elements) that for the most part do not exceed
0.1c.
Sirius tossed away something like 2.6e12 tonnes/sec for roughly 200
million years, whereas only a very small portion (>0.1%) of that mass
was via photons and neutrinos or electromagnetic radiation.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> On 10/24/10 11:46 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 10/24/10 9:09 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> >> We are told and for the most part accept that stars represent a great
> >> less than c velocity kind and of a spectrum that we can’t see or even
> >> feel while protected on Earth (few if any of us have ever directly
> >> seen or felt a CME), as well as every star is offering the sorts of
> >> terrific magnetic and electrostatic forces that also goes unnoticed by
>
> > The radiation from a star (other than some neutrinos) is all
> > electromagnetic radiation from radio to gamma propagating at
> > the speed of light.
>
> Of course, stars also spew out charge particles (solar wind),
> which in the case of the Sun and earth takes about two days
> to reach us, compared to the 8 or so minutes for the photons.
Exactly, whereas <0.1% is via photons and electromagnetic radiation,
and the other 99.9% loss is actual stellar matter getting tossed
because the sun doesn't represent enough gravity to hold onto it's own
magnetic launched farts.
~ BG
Brad Guth
> http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.0399
>
> The mass, density and radius of Earth = 9.8 m/s/s, as such it doesn’t
> take any Einstein to figure out that gravity can rather easily exceed
> the speed of light, such as with whatever a neutron star has to offer
> =>3e11 fold greater pull than Earth, or that’s 3e12 m/s/s (ten
> thousand times faster than light), and we’re not even talking about
> black holes. Possibly gravity is worth c2 (<9e16 m/s) or infinitely
> faster. Therefore, exactly how much of our galaxy is going to remain
> as stealth/invisible to us is yet to be contemplated, much less if
> ever detected within existing technology.
>
> Gravity isn’t as weak of force as we’ve been told, perhaps mostly
> because it’s continuous and measured in Newtons per second, and with
> time that amount of force really adds up, even over great distances
> where very large volumes of molecular/nebula gas become a sufficiently
> concentrated amount of mass to contend with. Our solar system doesn’t
> that of a vast molecular cloud, because the affect upon our solar
> system is exactly the same. Unfortunately, even though galaxies have
> collided, merged or interacted in various ways with one another, most
> astrophysics and cosmology types are simply unwilling to look at the
> past if it in any way affects our past, current of future existence.
>
> ~ BG
Betelgeuse was likely a WR kind of fast evolving progenitor star
that’ll end up as either a very massive and unstable white dwarf or
finalized as a neutron star, whereas Sirius(B) was never so massive
outside of its molecular/nebula cloud of <3e37 kg that lasted for only
a million some odd years (roughly 4+ galactic cycles offered a
considerable amount of time for that gravity exposure of <3e37 kg to
have perturbed our solar system into joining up with those Sirius
stars)
Our sun most likely started out as worth >2.5e30 kg (possibly worth
<2.6e30 kg). Figure the average all-inclusive loss at >3e9 tonnes/sec
for our sun over the past 5 billion years (more likely having to lose
3.5<4e9 tonne/sec, or <4.5e9 tonnes/sec if you like using 4.5e9
years).
Sirius(B) started out as perhaps worth 1.7<1.9e31 kg, losing on
average <2.6e12 tonnes/sec for the first 200 million years before
terminating into its stable white dwarf phase, and that's certainly
giving off a lot of stellar CME flack and/or carbon buckyballs, none
of which would have been all that kind to whatever local planets
parked much closer than 32 AU (unless they had one heck of a Venus
like robust atmosphere and such thick clouds in order to reflect and
filter out the vast bulk of all that terrific heat and UV energy,
might have allowed for an 8 AU orbital existence).
Try to remember that little Sirius(A) of that same initial era was
only a binary minor or pup star to that of the much larger and
considerably massive Sirius(B). None the less, Sirius(A) at 3 Ms and
losing 2.5e14 kg/sec would likely have perturbed whatever planets of
Sirius(B), as most likely helping some to better survive their exit
away before the final demise of that Sirius(B) red supergiant phase.
The Origin of Elements / Joshua E. Barnes
http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ast110_06/tooe.html
Supposedly everything of our Earth, other planets, moons, asteroids,
comets, meteors and cosmic dust came from the stars, which previously
came from all the vast amounts of rogue stuff which somehow found a
voodoo way of becoming sufficient molecular clouds that only existed
because of the demise of previous stars that either merged with others
and/or pooped out (so to speak). This cosmology is obviously another
one of those pesky chicken or egg dilemmas.
~ BG
palsing
> Betelgeuse was likely a WR kind of fast evolving progenitor star
> that’ll end up as either a very massive and unstable white dwarf or
> finalized as a neutron star...
Not likely at all. Do you EVER do any research before engaging your
keyboard? Fast evolving? Sure, all big stars are fast evolving. WR
star? No evidence whatsoever for this. End up as a white dwarf? Not a
chance... unless the star is not as heavy as most sources say it is.
There are still a lot of unknowns about Betelguese, still a lot to
learn... read these to actually learn something, rather than make it
up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/betelgeuse.htm
http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/betelgeuse.html
<http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/01/is-
betelgeuse-about-to-blow/>
> Supposedly everything of our Earth, other planets, moons, asteroids,
> comets, meteors and cosmic dust came from the stars, which previously
> came from all the vast amounts of rogue stuff which somehow found a
> voodoo way of becoming sufficient molecular clouds that only existed
> because of the demise of previous stars that either merged with others
> and/or pooped out (so to speak). This cosmology is obviously another
> one of those pesky chicken or egg dilemmas.
This cosmology is fairly well accepted, and I don't believe there is
any pesky dilemma. The earliest stars were comprised entirely of
primordial hydrogen and helium. Although none of these currently still
exist, they are part of the hypothetical stellar category Population
III. An interesting and informative discussion of this theory is here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity
Do everyone a favor and read a little more before posting. The only
thing pesky around here is your lack of facts.
"Let us take things as we find them: let us not attempt to distort
them into what they are not. We cannot make facts. All our wishing
cannot change them. We must use them.
- John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801 - 1890)
Yes, I know, he is dead...
\Paul A
Sam Wormley
> Betelgeuse was likely a WR kind of fast evolving progenitor star
> finalized as a neutron star, whereas Sirius(B) was never so massive
> outside of its molecular/nebula cloud of<3e37 kg that lasted for only
> a million some odd years (roughly 4+ galactic cycles offered a
> considerable amount of time for that gravity exposure of<3e37 kg to
> have perturbed our solar system into joining up with those Sirius
> stars)
Ref: http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/betelgeuse.html
"We do not really know the star's condition at the moment, but the odds
are that it is now in the process of fusing helium into carbon and
oxygen in its core. From theory, its initial mass should have fallen
somewhere around 18 or 19 times that of the Sun. Starting life as hot,
blue, class O star only around 10 million years ago, Betelgeuse will
fuse elements through neon, magnesium, sodium, and silicon all the way
to iron. The core will then collapse, causing the star to blow up as a
supernova, most likely leaving a compact neutron star about the size of
a small town behind. If it were to explode today, it would become as
bright as a gibbous Moon, would cast strong shadows on the ground, and
would be seen easily in full daylight".
Ref: http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/sirius.html
"Sirius B is the chief member of a trio of classic white dwarfs, the
others Procyon B and 40 Eridani B. Its high mass and tiny radius lead to
an amazing average density of 1.7 metric tons per cubic centimeter,
roughly a sugar cube. White dwarfs are the end products of ordinary
stars like the Sun, tiny remnants that were once nuclear-fusing cores
that have run out of fuel. Most are balls of carbon and oxygen whose
fates are merely to cool forever. To have evolved first, Sirius B must
once have been more massive and luminous than Sirius A. That its mass is
now lower is proof that stars lose considerable mass as they die. Given
the mass of the white dwarf and the 250 million year age of the system,
Sirius B may once have been a hot class B3-B5 star that could have
contained as much as 5 to 7 solar masses, the star perhaps losing over
80 percent of itself back into interstellar space through earlier winds".
Brad Guth
You can failsafe pretend all you like, because that's what brown-nosed
puppets and parrots of the mainstream status quo do best, as otherwise
you'd become unemployed as well as unemployable.
3e37 kg is simply a lot of local mass to ignore, not that other
molecular/nebula clouds weren't getting involved from time to time.
The molecular cloud that created the likes of Betelgeuse could have
been worth 6e37 kg, if not <1e37 kg. Fortunately it would have been
too far away from us to matter.
btw; which came first?
~ BG