Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?

[Brad Guth]

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”,
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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
years ago.

Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
away from our solar system's tidal radii grip. It seems that’s
representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
Newtonian orbital trek should.

That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
system changed forever.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

The escape from Sirius is perhaps a little easier said than
accomplished, especially when it was worth so much extra mass (<2e31
kg for Sirius[B] and <2.6e31 for the whole package deal plus another
3e37 kg as of 260+ million years ago) to begin with, such as when we
bother to include that terrific molecular/nebula cloud along with its
impressive protostars, and a little further 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 is
telling us exactly where those Sirius stars and their 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.

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 are taking into account the added
gravity pull of our solar system or any barycenter considerations.

Thus far the required escape velocity from Sirius as is doesn’t seem
so terribly great, so why exactly are we headed back towards that
sucker at 7.6 km/sec?

Even at a spread of 1000 ly and using 2.5e37 kg, we’re looking at an
exit/escape velocity of 18.8 km/sec required in order that our solar
system to 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. (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 maximum distance).

As you get closer to a given mass, be it terrific stars like Sirius 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 manage
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 three body orbital simulation of
stellar proper motions that’ll work this rogue analogy of Sirius and
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]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

Apparently to the mainstream mindset of our newsgroup contributors
like “palsing” want us to believe that whatever nearby gravity really
doesn’t count if it involves capturing some nearby mass, such as
latching onto our somewhat little and passive solar system, whereas
even a nearby molecular/nebula cloud of 3e37 kg that’s creating those
horrific Sirius stars is supposed to be considered as insignificant
and supposedly always too far away and cold no matters what. Go
figure how we got so lucky and always clueless at the same time.

According to our many resident perpetual naysayers, mainstream
obfuscation expertise and their usual denial policy of ever being in
denial, as peers and wizards of their insider faith-based cabal
approved conditional physics and selective science, it's always good
to know that if any 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud of <64 ly radii
showed up within a few tens of light years from us, and started
pumping out those massive stars that’ll also remain nearby, which in
turn spent a few tens of thousands or million some odd initial years
creating planets and also their soft-nova phase of blowing away the
mostly unused/surplus portion of that molecular/nebula mass, that as
such supposedly nothing the least bit unusual would happen throughout
our solar system that’s cruising rather nearby and unavoidably caught
directly in the exit path of some of that molecular/nebula mass that’s
also nicely heated up to several thousand K, from having just given
birth to those absolutely terrific Sirius stars, that subsequently
utilize their impressive fusion energy and CMEs to the fullest extent
because, when starting off as massive enough they may only have a
couple hundred million years to live hard and fast before sequencing
into a white dwarf. In other words, the bigger the protostar the
harder and faster it burns through its hydrogen, and thereby the
faster it gets to die and loose its grip on whatever local planets.

I also have to interpret that our resident cosmology wizards simply do
not wish others to even ponder or much less consider that anything
ever gets captured or even significantly perturbed by such a
persistent nearby mass, thereby zilch worth of interactions as even
from several thousand molecular particles/cm3 going <20000 km/s past
and directly into us for a few good centuries (whereas even a ten fold
stronger geomagnetic force and its magnetosphere probably couldn’t
save us), because that’s only something like being caught in a
continuous 1e15 kg solar halo CME outflow that’s temporarily kicking
up our atmospheric temperature by 1% for up to a day or so (whereas
the continuous influx from all things Sirius might conceivably obtain
a local temperature boost of <10%). With such planetary creation
nebula clumps or somewhat compacted particle densities of <1e4/cm3, as
well as temperatures <20000 K.

Gee whiz, as of roughly 260 million years ago (shortly after the
initial creation of those Sirius stars), what could possibly go wrong
for our environment?

When those nearby Sirius Stars fired up, and their fusion proceeds to
somewhat aggressively blow away the remaining molecular/nebula cloud
of nearly 3e37 kg, whereas that sort of process could have expanded
its cloud radii by .1%/year (19e3 km/sec), is most likely when our
solar system would have eventually been engulfed in that surplus
molecular/nebula outflow for a considerable amount of time (perhaps
worth a good thousand years), and otherwise those new stars should
have lit up our icy nighttime as brighter than any full moonlight
(especially in the UV spectrum) so that at least our terrestrial
diatoms and many other kinds of local biodiversity that feed on UV
became happy campers.

~ BG

[palsing]

On Sep 21, 1:12 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

< snipped the more-of-the-same BS that never stops, it just keeps
going on and on... >

So tell me, why are you so hung up about the -8km/sec or so radial
velocity of the Sirius system, some 8 light years away, when you could
be talking instead about the -25 km/sec radial velocity of Alpha and
Beta Centaurus, at only 4 light years away? Wouldn't a star system
only half as far away and closing at 3 times the velocity be more of a
threat, in your 'opinion'?

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 1:38 pm, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:12 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> < snipped the more-of-the-same BS that never stops, it just keeps
> going on and on... >
>
> So tell me, why are you so hung up about the -8km/sec or so radial
> velocity of the Sirius system, some 8 light years away, when you could
> be talking instead about the -25 km/sec  radial velocity of Alpha and
> Beta Centaurus, at only 4 light years away? Wouldn't a star system
> only half as far away and closing at 3 times the velocity be more of a
> threat, in your 'opinion'?
>
> \Paul A

The primary threat happened 260+ million years ago, and lucky us, that
threat has gotten less over time, as well as I doubt this planet of
ours w/moon will ever see another ice age unless we relocate that moon
out to Earth L1 before it's too late.

Those are just worthy swags for the moment, because there are simply
too many variables to nail down, and that 8 km/sec came from that
escape velocity calculation link provided, as having to work with the
given distance and 3e37 kg mass. Actually, I think we're supposed to
add in the secondary mass of 2.1e30 kg, which should only make a very
minor/insignificant difference.

The smaller star that's closing way faster (Barnard's Star) simply
doesn't have the proper spectrum of energy or the mass that was
required, nor did it ever have the 3e37 kg molecular/nebula cloud to
begin with, much less parked nearby enough to count.

Alpha and Beta Centaurus look interesting. So where the heck were
they 260+ million years ago?

However, the 2.96 light year distance of Sirius in roughly 28.4e3
years seems likely enough (though I bet that one gets revised to a
smaller number as better astrophysics takes everything into account).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#Future_and_past

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

Try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#Future_and_past

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#Future_and_past

For the same reasons why galaxies of considerable mass can’t seem to
avoid interacting with one another and even attracting mergers of
smaller galaxies that happen to pass nearby (within as great as 4r),
whereas local star systems of sufficient mass similar to what those
Sirius stars had first represented along with their terrific molecular/
nebula cloud mass that tend to dominate or at the very least perturb
other local smaller stars on a regular basis.

A preview as of few million years after our galaxy interacts with
Andromeda
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/format/xlarge_web/
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A4.html
What could possibly go wrong as our black holes and solar systems
tangle with the Andromeda black holes and similar solar systems, as
well as having loads of cosmic mergers and long-range tidal
interactions that'll start taking place?

Notice those ghostly 4+r extensions of those Oort cloud like spiral
features. How about we call them GOCs (Galactic Oort Clouds) or GGC’s
(Galactic Ghost Clouds) or GNCs (Galactic Nebula Clouds) that are far
reaching.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/24/

Perhaps you can help suggest to us where that Sirius originating
molecular/nebula cloud was as of 260+ million years ago, in
relationship to our wussy little solar system at that same time.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 23, 12:08 pm, "Hagar" <***@sahm.name> wrote:
> "Saul Levy" <***@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > You can't see any Oort cloud in that IMAGE, GOOFYSHITHEAD!
>
> > You MAKE THIS SHIT UP with your DELUSIONS!
>
> > No wonder we canNOT AGREE WITH SUCH SHIT!
>
> > FUCK OFF, FOOL!
>
> > Saul Levy
>
> > On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:51:55 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth
> > <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Sep 21, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Try:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
> >>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#Future_and_past
>
> >>For the same reasons why galaxies of considerable mass can't seem to
> >>avoid interacting with one another and even attracting mergers of
> >>smaller galaxies that happen to pass nearby (within as great as 4r),
> >>whereas local star systems of sufficient mass similar to what those
> >>Sirius stars had first represented along with their terrific molecular/
> >>nebula cloud mass that tend to dominate or at the very least perturb
> >>other local smaller stars on a regular basis.
>
> >>A preview as of few million years after our galaxy interacts with
> >>Andromeda
> >>http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/
> >>http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/for...
> >>http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A4.html
> >> What could possibly go wrong as our black holes and solar systems
> >>tangle with the Andromeda black holes and similar solar systems, as
> >>well as having loads of cosmic mergers and long-range tidal
> >>interactions that'll start taking place?
>
> >>Notice those ghostly 4+r extensions of those Oort cloud like spiral
> >>features.  How about we call them GOCs (Galactic Oort Clouds) or GGC's
> >>(Galactic Ghost Clouds) or GNCs (Galactic Nebula Clouds) that are far
> >>reaching.
> >>http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/24/
>
> >>Perhaps you can help suggest to us where that Sirius originating
> >>molecular/nebula cloud was as of 260+ million years ago, in
> >>relationship to our wussy little solar system at that same time.
>
> >> ~ BG
>
> Brad, me boi ... you lost it a long time ago.  Sirius, at twice the mass of
> the Sun and 8.6 LY distant has no influence on our Solar System whatsoever.
> In that same sphere there are approximately 15 other stars, some as close as
> 4.5LYs, which would offset any gravitational influence that Sirius might
> exert.  Let's not forget its wrestling match with a White Dwarf and a
> possible third companion, as yet unseen, but subtle orbital disturbances
> imply its presence.
>
> As usual, your cult-like fascination with Sirius is right up there with
> O'Bummer's misguided fascination with healthcare.  You're both bona-fide
> lunatics and belong in living quarters with padded walls and floors and
> locked doors (from the outside) ... for your own safety, natch.
>
> Since you're plonk'd, save your breath ... I probably won't see your
> brain-dead reply.

Why did you remove the other newsgroups?
alt.astronomy, sci.astro.amateur, sci.physics, alt.sci.physics,
alt.sci.astro

I'm working up another tactical go at this, so don't bother to topic/
author stalk like you and others of your ZNR/GOP redneck parrot kind
usually do, especially since you always manage to avoid the primary
context and gist of our topics anyway.

~ BG

[Mark Earnest]

On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.

Remember the Copernican two focii of the ellipse.

If Sol and Sirius become the two focii, the combined planets of the
two
are in for a rocky ride.

Earth would become a seasonal rollercoaster.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Mark Earnest <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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”,
> > 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> > headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> > Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> > years ago.
>
> Remember the Copernican two focii of the ellipse.
>
> If Sol and Sirius become the two focii, the combined planets of the
> two are in for a rocky ride.
>
> Earth would become a seasonal rollercoaster.

At least for the moment we're too far apart for that to happen, but
none the less there has to be some kind of interactions taking place,
and especially as of 260+ million years ago.

~ BG

[John Smith]

On 9/22/2010 12:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Mark Earnest<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, Brad Guth<***@gmail.com> wrote:
..
...
>>> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
>>> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
>>> years ago.
>>
>> Remember the Copernican two focii of the ellipse.
>>
>> If Sol and Sirius become the two focii, the combined planets of the
>> two are in for a rocky ride.
>>
>> Earth would become a seasonal rollercoaster.
>
> At least for the moment we're too far apart for that to happen, but
> none the less there has to be some kind of interactions taking place,
> and especially as of 260+ million years ago.

But wasn't that when the Sirians controlled virtually all of the Milky
Way? Since the fall of the empire, our planets haven't had any problems
as far as I know. Earth only has to deal with the Chinese now!

--
John

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 12:38 pm, John Smith <***@example.net> wrote:
> On 9/22/2010 12:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:> On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Mark Earnest<***@yahoo.com>  wrote:
> >> On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, Brad Guth<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>   ..
>     ...
>
> >>> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> >>> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> >>> years ago.
>
> >> Remember the Copernican two focii of the ellipse.
>
> >> If Sol and Sirius become the two focii, the combined planets of the
> >> two are in for a rocky ride.
>
> >> Earth would become a seasonal rollercoaster.
>
> > At least for the moment we're too far apart for that to happen, but
> > none the less there has to be some kind of interactions taking place,
> > and especially as of 260+ million years ago.
>
> But wasn't that when the Sirians controlled virtually all of the Milky
> Way? Since the fall of the empire, our planets haven't had any problems
> as far as I know. Earth only has to deal with the Chinese now!
>
> --
> John

It sort of depends on which side those Rothschild 'seans' decide to
favor, so we could be either screwed or become global dominating just
like in those good old days when Hitler and his Zionist partners as
pretend-Atheists were trying their level best without any help from
those immortal seans, that supposedly showed up 70 million years BP.

~ BG

[John Smith]

On 9/24/2010 9:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 24, 12:38 pm, John Smith<***@example.net> wrote:
>> On 9/22/2010 12:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:> On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Mark Earnest<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, Brad Guth<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ..
>> ...
>>
>>>>> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
>>>>> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
>>>>> years ago.
>>
>>>> Remember the Copernican two focii of the ellipse.
>>
>>>> If Sol and Sirius become the two focii, the combined planets of the
>>>> two are in for a rocky ride.
>>
>>>> Earth would become a seasonal rollercoaster.
>>
>>> At least for the moment we're too far apart for that to happen, but
>>> none the less there has to be some kind of interactions taking place,
>>> and especially as of 260+ million years ago.
>>
>> But wasn't that when the Sirians controlled virtually all of the Milky
>> Way? Since the fall of the empire, our planets haven't had any problems
>> as far as I know. Earth only has to deal with the Chinese now!
>>
>> --
>> John
>
> It sort of depends on which side those Rothschild 'seans' decide to
> favor, so we could be either screwed or become global dominating just
> like in those good old days when Hitler and his Zionist partners as
> pretend-Atheists were trying their level best without any help from
> those immortal seans, that supposedly showed up 70 million years BP.

BP? I'm already hearing alarming things about them as well, lately! Be
sure to know where your towel is, Brad..

--
John

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 25, 5:18 am, John Smith <***@example.net> wrote:
> On 9/24/2010 9:57 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 12:38 pm, John Smith<***@example.net>  wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2010 12:51 AM, Brad Guth wrote:>  On Sep 21, 2:48 pm, Mark Earnest<***@yahoo.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 21, 1:43 pm, Brad Guth<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
>
> >>    ..
> >>      ...
>
> >>>>> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> >>>>> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> >>>>> years ago.
>
> >>>> Remember the Copernican two focii of the ellipse.
>
> >>>> If Sol and Sirius become the two focii, the combined planets of the
> >>>> two are in for a rocky ride.
>
> >>>> Earth would become a seasonal rollercoaster.
>
> >>> At least for the moment we're too far apart for that to happen, but
> >>> none the less there has to be some kind of interactions taking place,
> >>> and especially as of 260+ million years ago.
>
> >> But wasn't that when the Sirians controlled virtually all of the Milky
> >> Way? Since the fall of the empire, our planets haven't had any problems
> >> as far as I know. Earth only has to deal with the Chinese now!
>
> >> --
> >> John
>
> > It sort of depends on which side those Rothschild 'seans' decide to
> > favor, so we could be either screwed or become global dominating just
> > like in those good old days when Hitler and his Zionist partners as
> > pretend-Atheists were trying their level best without any help from
> > those immortal seans, that supposedly showed up 70 million years BP.
>
> BP? I'm already hearing alarming things about them as well, lately! Be
> sure to know where your towel is, Brad..
>
> --
> John

Isn't there some kind of new medication for your dysfunctional bipolar
disorder?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Try:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
>      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#Future_and_past

Thanks so very much. Please don't stop with just that. How about
offering a fully 3D interactive multi-body computer simulation that we
can tweek?

If that Wikipedia information is correct, Alpha Centauri A/Sirius(A)
is going to lose half of its mass in the next 28.4 thousand years?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 4:04 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Try:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars
> >      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_stars#Future_and_past
>
> Thanks so very much.  Please don't stop with just that.  How about
> offering a fully 3D interactive multi-body computer simulation that we
> can tweek?
>
> If that Wikipedia information is correct, Alpha Centauri A/Sirius(A)
> is going to lose half of its mass in the next 28.4 thousand years?
>
>  ~ BG

Sirius(A) 71683 as reported in that published list of nearest stars
"Future and past" being worth 1.1 Ms still hasn't been corrected, and
as such means that their math as to everything associated is likely at
risk of being incorrect. Isn't the golden rule of "one mistake and
you're out" apply?

In order for Sirius(A) to lose roughly one solar mass within 2.84e4
years would represent an impressive outflux mass flow of 2.233e18 kg/
sec. I suppose that's possible if Sirius(A) wasn't very old to begin
with. Are they suggesting that Sirius(A) is only 1 million years
old? However, what exactly does that make Sirius(B)? (do they know
something special that the rest of us village idiots don't)

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

A really big and thereby massive enough proto/progenitor star has to
create a terrific solar CME outflux/wind that can consistently push
against the raw force of its own gravity plus whatever added influence
the nebula disk amounts to (minus those centripetal forces of spin),
essentially arresting that which created such a considerable star like
Sirius(B) to begin with. This is the only practical way whatever
planets or secondary close-binary companion star can ever materialize,
as their having to develop within a sort of molecular/nebula velocity
nullified zone of compacting and further collecting where all the
surrounding and still incoming molecular/nebula clumps can merge with
the primary CME outflux mass in order to start forming those items
within the first 1<10 million some odd years.

There’s actually a great deal of variation (meaning disagreements) as
to how such planets or binary companion stars take shape, but if we
stick with one of the more accepted theories is perhaps good enough
for the moment.

With having to overcome that kind of progenitor stellar gravity we’re
not talking about any few thousand km/sec of solar wind (such as the
initial escape velocity of ~1500 km/sec), but instead more like a soft/
slow-nova outflow that’s capable of providing tens of thousands of km/
sec as coming from such a truly massive protostar that’s initially
losing at least 10+ trillion tonnes per second, and let us say we give
this protostar the conservative benefit of an initial 1e13 tonnes/sec
loss that falls off to a dull roar of losing only 8e12 tonnes/sec
after the first million years, whereas this should give that
opportunity for those companions to start forming.

As an average for the first 200 million years of Sirius(B) might have
to suggest a lost of 2.4e12 tonnes/sec, so it’s really not so terribly
hard to imagine what that star was initially putting out at least 1e13
tonnes/sec (mostly dispersed into that surrounding solar nebula disk
of concentrated CMEs), and perhaps the somewhat nearby though
unrelated little Sirius(A) was unloading at <2e12 tonnes/sec. Some
further speculation applied math could help establish what amount of
outflux was likely necessary in order to nullify the considerable
proto/progenitor star plus that of its surrounding nebula disk of
gravity from such a massive start-up was actually all about, as its
outflux provided sufficient mass in order to form whatever planets or
that of conceivably a companion star (aka Sirius C as a gas supergiant
or red dwarf that didn’t survive for long).

Of course those suggesting the white dwarf phase as being ~130 million
years old means that my estimates of the Sirius(B) initial outflux are
perhaps a tad conservative. Imagine if that main sequence of
Sirius(B) converting into a white dwarf is what happened as of 160
million years ago, instead of the 60 million years BP that I’ve been
suggesting, but then white dwarfs can manage to flare up, and so it’s
always kinda hard to tell exactly what happened.

The dense accretion disk of Sirius(B) might have easily exceeded 10000
AU (1.5e12 km), as well as packing 1e9<1e11 particles/cm3 in addition
to a few CME contributed clumps <1e12/cm3. So, as long as our solar
system was nowhere near or much less aligned with that nebula disk as
of 260 million years ago, there shouldn’t have been any connection as
to what took place on our planet that changed most everything
imaginable.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

A really big and thereby massive enough proto/progenitor star has to
create a terrific solar CME outflux/wind that can consistently push
against the raw force of its own gravity plus whatever added influence
the nebula disk amounts to (minus those centripetal forces of spin),
essentially arresting that which created such a considerable star like
Sirius(B) to begin with. This is the only practical way (other than
via capture) whatever planets or secondary close-binary companion star
can ever materialize, as their having to develop within a sort of
molecular/nebula velocity nullified zone of compacting and further
collecting where all the surrounding and still incoming molecular/
nebula clumps can merge with the primary CME outflux mass in order to
start forming those items within the first 1<10 million some odd
years.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/P/planneb.html
“The most widely used scheme to classify planetary nebulae by their
appearance has been the Vorontsov-Velyaminov scheme. However, in
recent years, the use of more powerful instruments, such as the Hubble
Space Telescope, and electronic detection methods have revealed a much
greater diversity in the morphology of planetary nebulae than was
previously realized. To the list of known objects conforming to the
classical ring and disk shapes have been added other, often young
planetary nebulae, with more complex shapes. Roughly one-tenth of
planetary nebulae have a prominent bipolar structure. A few are
significantly asymmetric.

Various ideas have been put forward to account for the broad range of
morphologies observed. These include interactions of the nebular gas
with magnetic fields from the central stars,3 interactions between
material moving away from the star at different speeds, multiple
ejection events, and, in the case of strongly bipolar nebulae,
gravitational interactions with companion stars if the central stars
are members of binary systems.”

-

There’s obviously a great deal of cosmic variation (meaning
disagreements) as to how such planets or binary companion stars take
shape, but if we stick with one of the more accepted theories is
perhaps good enough for the moment.

Having to overcome that kind of progenitor stellar gravity we’re not
talking about any few thousand km/sec of solar wind (such as the
initial escape velocity of ~1500 km/sec), but instead more like a soft/
slow-nova outflow that’s capable of providing tens of thousands of km/
sec as coming from such a truly massive protostar that’s initially
losing at least 10+ trillion tonnes per second, and let us say we give
this protostar the conservative benefit of an initial 1e13 tonnes/sec
loss that falls off to a dull roar of losing only 8e12 tonnes/sec
after the first million years, whereas this should give that
opportunity for those companions to start forming.

As an average for the first 200 million years of Sirius(B) might have
to suggest a lost of 2.4e12 tonnes/sec, so it’s really not so terribly
hard to imagine what that star was initially putting out at least 1e13
tonnes/sec (mostly dispersed into that surrounding solar nebula disk
of concentrated CMEs), and perhaps the somewhat nearby though
unrelated little Sirius(A) was unloading at <2e12 tonnes/sec. Some
further speculation applied math could help establish what amount of
outflux was likely necessary in order to nullify the considerable
proto/progenitor star plus that of its surrounding nebula disk of
gravity from such a massive start-up was actually all about, as its
outflux provided sufficient mass in order to form whatever planets or
that of conceivably a companion star (aka Sirius C as a gas supergiant
or red dwarf that didn’t survive for long).

Of course those suggesting the white dwarf phase as being ~130 million
years old means that my estimates of the Sirius(B) initial mass and
outflux are perhaps a tad conservative. Imagine if that main sequence
of Sirius(B) converting into a white dwarf is what happened as of 160
million years ago, instead of the 60 million years BP that I’ve been
suggesting, but then white dwarfs can manage to flare up, and so it’s
always kinda hard to tell exactly what happened.

The dense accretion disk of Sirius(B) might have easily exceeded 10000
AU (1.5e12 km), as well as packing 1e9<1e11 particles/cm3 in addition
to a few CME contributed clumps <1e12/cm3. So, as long as our solar
system was nowhere near or much less aligned with that nebula disk as
of 260 million years ago, there shouldn’t have been any connection as
to what took place on our planet that changed most everything
imaginable.

As far as anyone knows there are no two moons, planets or stars alike,
as well as complex molecular/nebula that seam as diverse as anything
is perhaps why all the diversity and complexity as to stellar and
other body formations that we know so little about their creation, age
and various evolutions or life cycles, that seem to suggest that
galaxies are not all the same age, meaning that even entire galaxies
have by now come and gone as their stars simply run out of fuel, as
well as many galaxies collide, merge and otherwise interact with one
another. In other words, because direct objective science isn’t
available is why there’s still a lot of astrophysics swag taking
place, which means the nearby formation and evolution or morphing of
Sirius (including its interactions with our solar system) is still up
for grabs, so to speak.

Perhaps the Cat's Eye Nebula is offering a small pilot or down-sized
version of what Sirius(B) as a red supergiant went through as recently
as 60 some odd million years ago. Now try to imagine the considerable
protostar or progenitor star along with its surrounding molecular/
nebula cloud of <3e37 Ms that gave us Sirius(B) to begin with, and how
such terrific mass and its subsequent fusion energy must have affected
our little nearby solar system as of 260+ million years ago and then
again as of 60 some odd million years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s_Eye_Nebula#Age

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
as is shown by observation.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> as is shown by observation.

In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?

Are you suggesting that our solar system merged into this galaxy?

Or, are you suggesting that everything within 1000 ly is rogue?

Are you suggesting that if a 3e37 kg cloud was ever placed nearby as
it cranked out a few massive stars, and having stayed as looking
really big in the night sky for millions of years before getting blown
away by those absolutely terrific solar winds, that nothing of our
solar system would ever be the least bit affected?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>> > as is shown by observation.

> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?

Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> >  The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >> >  as is shown by observation.
> > In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> > was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> > system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
>    Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>    as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>    is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>    stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.

There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.

“Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”

"The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
by B. Nordström et al.
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%3Atales-of-a-thousand-and-one-nights-6-april-2004&catid=79%3A2004-press-releases&Itemid=276&lang=en_GB.utf8%2C+en_GB.UT

“Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>>
>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> by B. Nordström et al.
> http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%3Atales-of-a-thousand-and-one-nights-6-april-2004&catid=79%3A2004-press-releases&Itemid=276&lang=en_GB.utf8%2C+en_GB.UT
>
> “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> ~ BG

...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
eccentricity e < 1.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>>>   The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>   as is shown by observation.
> >>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>     Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>     as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>     is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>     stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> > There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> > orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> > bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> > “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> > "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> > by B. Nordström et al.
> >http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> >    “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> > Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> > measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> > But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> > the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> > measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> > has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> > motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> > neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> > the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> > history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> > observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
>    eccentricity e < 1.

Barycenter mean anything to you?

Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
something.

All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
voodoo.

Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
via Hipparcos is bogus?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>>>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>>
>>>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>>>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>>>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>>>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>>
>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>>
>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>>
>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
>>> by B. Nordström et al.
>>> http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>>
>>> “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
>> eccentricity e< 1.
>
> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> something.
>
> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> voodoo.
>
> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> ~ BG

We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
And that can change!

Do you have some point you are trying to make?

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>>>    The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>>>    as is shown by observation.
> >>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>>>      Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>>>      as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>>>      is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>>>      stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> >>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> >>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> >>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> >>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> >>> by B. Nordström et al.
> >>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> >>>     “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> >>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> >>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> >>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> >>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> >>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> >>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> >>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> >>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> >>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> >>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> >>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> >>>    ~ BG
>
> >>     ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> >>     eccentricity e<  1.
>
> > Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> > Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> > for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> > something.
>
> > All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> > voodoo.
>
> > Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> > via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
>    certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
>    And that can change!
>
>    Do you have some point you are trying to make?

Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"

If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
solar system?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>>>>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>>
>>>>>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>>>>>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>>>>>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>>>>>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>>
>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>>
>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>>
>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
>>>>> http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>>
>>>>> “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>> ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
>>>> eccentricity e< 1.
>>
>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>>
>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
>>> something.
>>
>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
>>> voodoo.
>>
>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
>> certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
>> And that can change!
>>
>> Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> solar system?
>
> ~ BG

The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.

*Solar System

[bert]

On Sep 25, 8:04 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>     The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>>>>>     as is shown by observation.
> >>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>>>>>       Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>>>>>       as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>>>>>       is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>>>>>       stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> >>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> >>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> >>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> >>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> >>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
> >>>>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> >>>>>      “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> >>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> >>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> >>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> >>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> >>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> >>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> >>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> >>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> >>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> >>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> >>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> >>>>>     ~ BG
>
> >>>>      ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> >>>>      eccentricity e<    1.
>
> >>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> >>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> >>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> >>> something.
>
> >>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> >>> voodoo.
>
> >>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> >>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> >>>    ~ BG
>
> >>     We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
> >>     certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
> >>     And that can change!
>
> >>     Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> > Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> > If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> > gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> > no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> > nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> > solar system?
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
>    observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
>    so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
>    other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>
>    *Solar System- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sam I always had the idea the stars in galaxies were in lock step.
Mack gave inertia great meaning on a big scale. He told us why a
bucket of water when swerling around has a concave surface. Two
pendulum clocks in a room on the Earth;s north pole always have there
bobs swing in unison.Its the stars that create this unison swing.
Things relate in amazing ways. TreBert

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/25/10 8:29 PM, bert wrote:
> Sam I always had the idea the stars in galaxies were in lock step.

Nope, gravitational forces and different velocities are continually
changing the mix... and the constellations. Galaxies do not rotate
like solid wheels. Look up galactic rotation curves, Herbert.

Mach

> Mack gave inertia great meaning on a big scale. He told us why a
> bucket of water when swerling around has a concave surface. Two
> pendulum clocks in a room on the Earth;s north pole always have there
> bobs swing in unison.Its the stars that create this unison swing.
> Things relate in amazing ways. TreBert

[bert]

On Sep 25, 10:30 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/10 8:29 PM, bert wrote:
>
> > Sam  I always had the idea the stars in galaxies were in lock step.
>
>    Nope, gravitational forces and different velocities are continually
>    changing the mix... and the constellations. Galaxies do not rotate
>    like solid wheels. Look up galactic rotation curves, Herbert.
>
>    Mach
>
>
>
> > Mack gave inertia great meaning on a big scale. He told us why a
> > bucket of water when swerling around has a concave surface. Two
> > pendulum clocks in a room on the Earth;s north pole always have there
> > bobs swing in unison.Its the stars that create this unison swing.
> > Things relate in amazing ways. TreBert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sam start of being careless Its Mach. I read more than once galaxies
spin like a frezee. They have a disc shape,and that is created by
rotation Side rotating towards us blue and side away red shifted. Arms
of galaxies have new blue stars. I'm sure older a elliptical galaxy
gets the flater it gets We have evidence of galaxies colliding,but
not two stars. Then we have those small but 1,000 times brighter than
the Milky Way. called quasars I have a few theories on them. When
huge galaxies say 4 billion LY away they can easily create
gravitational lensing. I have in my universe picture scrapebook Abell
2218 to prove this.Keep reading Milky Ways is billions and billions
old. I would like a better measurement on its age. Keep in mind I have
22 billion for age of universe. That is about 7 billion more than
Google TreBert

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 26, 4:38 pm, bert <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 10:30 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/25/10 8:29 PM, bert wrote:
>
> > > Sam  I always had the idea the stars in galaxies were in lock step.
>
> >    Nope, gravitational forces and different velocities are continually
> >    changing the mix... and the constellations. Galaxies do not rotate
> >    like solid wheels. Look up galactic rotation curves, Herbert.
>
> >    Mach
>
> > > Mack gave inertia great meaning on a big scale. He told us why a
> > > bucket of water when swerling around has a concave surface. Two
> > > pendulum clocks in a room on the Earth;s north pole always have there
> > > bobs swing in unison.Its the stars that create this unison swing.
> > > Things relate in amazing ways. TreBert- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sam start of being careless  Its Mach. I read more than once galaxies
> spin like a frezee.  They have a disc shape,and that is created by
> rotation Side rotating towards us blue and side away red shifted. Arms
> of galaxies have new blue stars. I'm sure older a elliptical galaxy
> gets the flater it gets  We have evidence of galaxies colliding,but
> not two stars. Then we have those small but 1,000 times brighter than
> the Milky Way. called quasars  I have a few theories on them.   When
> huge galaxies say 4 billion LY away they can easily create
> gravitational lensing. I have in my universe picture scrapebook Abell
> 2218 to prove this.Keep reading Milky Ways is billions and billions
> old. I would like a better measurement on its age. Keep in mind I have
> 22 billion for age of universe. That is about 7 billion more than
> Google    TreBert

There's no telling how old the original core and its surrounding
population of original stars associated with our galaxy is. For all
we know, our perception as to the age of this Milky Way could be 100
billion years off. Perhaps 4.5 billion years ago is simply when our
molecular/nebula cloud merged with this galaxy we call home. The
universe could easily be 220 billion years old. So how many decades
and trillions of our hard earned loot should we spend on figuring this
out?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/26/10 7:20 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> There's no telling how old the original core and its surrounding
> population of original stars associated with our galaxy is. For all
> we know, our perception as to the age of this Milky Way could be 100
> billion years off.

Most likely parts of the current conglomeration of mergers, we call
our galaxy are as old as galactic formation, perhaps as old as 13.3
billion years ago.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 26, 8:39 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/10 7:20 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > There's no telling how old the original core and its surrounding
> > population of original stars associated with our galaxy is.  For all
> > we know, our perception as to the age of this Milky Way could be 100
> > billion years off.
>
>    Most likely parts of the current conglomeration of mergers, we call
>    our galaxy are as old as galactic formation, perhaps as old as 13.3
>    billion years ago.

Your perhaps is good enough for now, but there's still no telling the
age of anything that has evolved or having been processed more than
once, and especially with rogue galaxies doing their own thing.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/26/10 6:38 PM, bert wrote:
> Sam start of being careless It[']s Mach. I read more than once galaxies
> spin like a frezee. They have a disc shape,and that is created by
> rotation Side rotating towards us blue and side away red shifted. Arms
> of galaxies have new blue stars. I'm sure older a elliptical galaxy
> gets the flater it getsWe have evidence of galaxies colliding,but
> not two stars.

There are lots of star mergers [blue straglers] in the Milky Way's
globular clusters.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>     The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>>>>>     as is shown by observation.
> >>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>>>>>       Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>>>>>       as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>>>>>       is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>>>>>       stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> >>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> >>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> >>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> >>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> >>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
> >>>>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> >>>>>      “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> >>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> >>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> >>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> >>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> >>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> >>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> >>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> >>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> >>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> >>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> >>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> >>>>>     ~ BG
>
> >>>>      ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> >>>>      eccentricity e<    1.
>
> >>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> >>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> >>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> >>> something.
>
> >>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> >>> voodoo.
>
> >>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> >>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> >>>    ~ BG
>
> >>     We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
> >>     certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
> >>     And that can change!
>
> >>     Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> > Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> > If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> > gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> > no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> > nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> > solar system?
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
>    observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
>    so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
>    other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>
>    *Solar System

Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
every planet and moon. Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
century or longer.

What's your best swag for all those ice ages and thawing in between
each of them?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/25/10 8:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>>>>>>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>>>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>>>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>>>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>>
>>>>>>>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>>>>>>>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>>>>>>>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>>>>>>>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>>
>>>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
>>>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
>>>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>>
>>>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>>
>>>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
>>>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
>>>>>>> http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>>
>>>>>>> “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
>>>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
>>>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
>>>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
>>>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
>>>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
>>>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
>>>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
>>>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
>>>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
>>>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
>>>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>>
>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>>>> ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
>>>>>> eccentricity e< 1.
>>
>>>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>>
>>>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
>>>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
>>>>> something.
>>
>>>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
>>>>> voodoo.
>>
>>>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
>>>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>> We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
>>>> certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
>>>> And that can change!
>>
>>>> Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>>
>>> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>>
>>> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
>>> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
>>> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
>>> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
>>> solar system?
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
>> observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
>> so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
>> other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>>
>> *Solar System
>
> Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
> every planet and moon. Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
> and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
> by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
> century or longer.

Solar CMEs don't escape the solar system--why would Sirius A be any
different, Brad?

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 25, 7:32 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/10 8:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>          wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>      The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>>>>>>>      as is shown by observation.
> >>>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>>>>>>>        Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>>>>>>>        as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>>>>>>>        is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>>>>>>>        stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >>>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> >>>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> >>>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> >>>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> >>>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> >>>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
> >>>>>>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> >>>>>>>       “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> >>>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> >>>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> >>>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> >>>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> >>>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> >>>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> >>>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> >>>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> >>>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> >>>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> >>>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> >>>>>>>      ~ BG
>
> >>>>>>       ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> >>>>>>       eccentricity e<      1.
>
> >>>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> >>>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> >>>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> >>>>> something.
>
> >>>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> >>>>> voodoo.
>
> >>>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> >>>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> >>>>>     ~ BG
>
> >>>>      We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
> >>>>      certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
> >>>>      And that can change!
>
> >>>>      Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> >>> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> >>> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> >>> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> >>> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> >>> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> >>> solar system?
>
> >>>    ~ BG
>
> >>     The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
> >>     observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
> >>     so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
> >>     other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>
> >>     *Solar System
>
> > Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
> > every planet and moon.  Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
> > and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
> > by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
> > century or longer.
>
>    Solar CMEs don't escape the solar system--why would Sirius A be any
>    different, Brad?

How about when it was a protostar/progenitor of 8.5+ Ms and
sufficiently nearby, or having either pole pointed at us. Just
thinking what a halo CME of 1e18 kg leaving Sirius(B) at 20000 km/s
might accomplish.

Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
million years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/25/10 10:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:32 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/25/10 8:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>>>>>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>>>>>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>>
>>>>>>>>>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>>>>>>>>>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>>>>>>>>>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>>>>>>>>>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>>
>>>>>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
>>>>>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
>>>>>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>>
>>>>>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>>
>>>>>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
>>>>>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>>
>>>>>>>>> “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
>>>>>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
>>>>>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
>>>>>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
>>>>>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
>>>>>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
>>>>>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
>>>>>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
>>>>>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
>>>>>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
>>>>>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
>>>>>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>>
>>>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>>>>>> ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
>>>>>>>> eccentricity e< 1.
>>
>>>>>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>>
>>>>>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
>>>>>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
>>>>>>> something.
>>
>>>>>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
>>>>>>> voodoo.
>>
>>>>>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
>>>>>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>>
>>>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>>>> We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
>>>>>> certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
>>>>>> And that can change!
>>
>>>>>> Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>>
>>>>> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>>
>>>>> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
>>>>> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
>>>>> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
>>>>> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
>>>>> solar system?
>>
>>>>> ~ BG
>>
>>>> The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
>>>> observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
>>>> so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
>>>> other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>>
>>>> *Solar System
>>
>>> Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
>>> every planet and moon. Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
>>> and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
>>> by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
>>> century or longer.
>>
>> Solar CMEs don't escape the solar system--why would Sirius A be any
>> different, Brad?
>
> How about when it was a protostar/progenitor of 8.5+ Ms and
> sufficiently nearby, or having either pole pointed at us. Just
> thinking what a halo CME of 1e18 kg leaving Sirius(B) at 20000 km/s
> might accomplish.
>
> Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
> 8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
> million years ago.
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/
>
> ~ BG

No observations show anything emanating for Sirius B. Anything from
the past has long since dissipated.

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 25, 8:19 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/10 10:08 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 7:32 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/25/10 8:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> >>>>>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>        wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>          wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>            wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>       The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>       as is shown by observation.
> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>>>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>>>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>>>>>>>>>         Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>>>>>>>>>         as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>>>>>>>>>         is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>>>>>>>>>         stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >>>>>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> >>>>>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> >>>>>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> >>>>>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> >>>>>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> >>>>>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
> >>>>>>>>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> >>>>>>>>>        “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> >>>>>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> >>>>>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> >>>>>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> >>>>>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> >>>>>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> >>>>>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> >>>>>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> >>>>>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> >>>>>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> >>>>>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> >>>>>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> >>>>>>>>>       ~ BG
>
> >>>>>>>>        ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> >>>>>>>>        eccentricity e<        1.
>
> >>>>>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> >>>>>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> >>>>>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> >>>>>>> something.
>
> >>>>>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> >>>>>>> voodoo.
>
> >>>>>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> >>>>>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> >>>>>>>      ~ BG
>
> >>>>>>       We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
> >>>>>>       certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
> >>>>>>       And that can change!
>
> >>>>>>       Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> >>>>> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> >>>>> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> >>>>> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> >>>>> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> >>>>> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> >>>>> solar system?
>
> >>>>>     ~ BG
>
> >>>>      The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
> >>>>      observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
> >>>>      so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
> >>>>      other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>
> >>>>      *Solar System
>
> >>> Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
> >>> every planet and moon.  Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
> >>> and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
> >>> by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
> >>> century or longer.
>
> >>     Solar CMEs don't escape the solar system--why would Sirius A be any
> >>     different, Brad?
>
> > How about when it was a protostar/progenitor of 8.5+ Ms and
> > sufficiently nearby, or having either pole pointed at us.  Just
> > thinking what a halo CME of 1e18 kg leaving Sirius(B) at 20000 km/s
> > might accomplish.
>
> > Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
> > 8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
> > million years ago.
> >  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    No observations show anything emanating for Sirius B. Anything from
>    the past has long since dissipated.

260 some odd million years ago, or even 60 million BP, is certainly
long gone and out of sight by now.

~ BG

[bert]

On Sep 25, 11:08 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 7:32 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/25/10 8:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > >> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > >>> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> > >>>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>        wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>          wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>      as is shown by observation.
> > >>>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> > >>>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> > >>>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> > >>>>>>>>        Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> > >>>>>>>>        as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> > >>>>>>>>        is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> > >>>>>>>>        stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> > >>>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> > >>>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> > >>>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> > >>>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> > >>>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> > >>>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
> > >>>>>>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> > >>>>>>>       “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> > >>>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> > >>>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> > >>>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> > >>>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> > >>>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> > >>>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> > >>>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> > >>>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> > >>>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> > >>>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> > >>>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> > >>>>>>>      ~ BG
>
> > >>>>>>       ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> > >>>>>>       eccentricity e<      1.
>
> > >>>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> > >>>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> > >>>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> > >>>>> something.
>
> > >>>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> > >>>>> voodoo.
>
> > >>>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> > >>>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> > >>>>>     ~ BG
>
> > >>>>      We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
> > >>>>      certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
> > >>>>      And that can change!
>
> > >>>>      Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> > >>> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> > >>> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> > >>> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> > >>> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> > >>> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> > >>> solar system?
>
> > >>>    ~ BG
>
> > >>     The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
> > >>     observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
> > >>     so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
> > >>     other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>
> > >>     *Solar System
>
> > > Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
> > > every planet and moon.  Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
> > > and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
> > > by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
> > > century or longer.
>
> >    Solar CMEs don't escape the solar system--why would Sirius A be any
> >    different, Brad?
>
> How about when it was a protostar/progenitor of 8.5+ Ms and
> sufficiently nearby, or having either pole pointed at us.  Just
> thinking what a halo CME of 1e18 kg leaving Sirius(B) at 20000 km/s
> might accomplish.
>
> Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
> 8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
> million years ago.
>  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/
>
>  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Its in lock step with Sirius ???? TreBert

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 26, 5:04 pm, bert <***@msn.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 11:08 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 25, 7:32 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 9/25/10 8:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 5:04 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> > > >> On 9/24/10 10:12 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > >>> On Sep 24, 7:15 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> > > >>>> On 9/24/10 9:00 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > >>>>> On Sep 24, 6:10 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>      wrote:
> > > >>>>>> On 9/24/10 7:59 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>> On Sep 24, 4:44 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>        wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>          wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>      The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>      as is shown by observation.
> > > >>>>>>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> > > >>>>>>>>> was and remains as rogue.  Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> > > >>>>>>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> > > >>>>>>>>        Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> > > >>>>>>>>        as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> > > >>>>>>>>        is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> > > >>>>>>>>        stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> > > >>>>>>> There are gravitational bound stars that exceed 100,000 year Keplerian
> > > >>>>>>> orbits, though mostly trinary or greater number of stars that are
> > > >>>>>>> bound to and interact with one another over long periods of time.
>
> > > >>>>>>> “Tales of a thousand and one nights: Past and future of the Milky Way”
>
> > > >>>>>>> "The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood",
> > > >>>>>>> by B. Nordström et al.
> > > >>>>>>>http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%...
>
> > > >>>>>>>       “Most of the stars are located within about 500 light-years from the
> > > >>>>>>> Earth and were already observed by the ESA satellite Hipparcos to
> > > >>>>>>> measure their precise distances and motions in the plane of the sky.
> > > >>>>>>> But a key piece was missing in our knowledge of their space motions in
> > > >>>>>>> the Galaxy: The radial velocities [1] of the stars were still not
> > > >>>>>>> measured, so only their 2D motions were known. The team of astronomers
> > > >>>>>>> has now filled this gap: For the first time, we now know the 3D space
> > > >>>>>>> motion of a complete sample of typical stars in the solar
> > > >>>>>>> neighbourhood. From their space motions, the team was able to compute
> > > >>>>>>> the positions of these stars at different points in the Milky Way's
> > > >>>>>>> history. For example, the movie below shows the motions of the
> > > >>>>>>> observed stars in their latest orbit around the Galactic Center.”
>
> > > >>>>>>>      ~ BG
>
> > > >>>>>>       ...which is not evidence of gravitationally bound (orbital
> > > >>>>>>       eccentricity e<      1.
>
> > > >>>>> Barycenter mean anything to you?
>
> > > >>>>> Last time I'd checked there were more than two stars out there, and
> > > >>>>> for some odd reason everything was and still is in orbit around
> > > >>>>> something.
>
> > > >>>>> All the sudden whatever gravity is meaningless, as is your faith-based
> > > >>>>> voodoo.
>
> > > >>>>> Can we assume that you think everything of stellar motions obtained
> > > >>>>> via Hipparcos is bogus?
>
> > > >>>>>     ~ BG
>
> > > >>>>      We are not gravitational bound to any single star system, but we are
> > > >>>>      certainly (currently) gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole.
> > > >>>>      And that can change!
>
> > > >>>>      Do you have some point you are trying to make?
>
> > > >>> Just the original "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?"
>
> > > >>> If our solar system and that of Sirius are "certainly (currently)
> > > >>> gravitationally bound to the galaxy as a whole", then why were there
> > > >>> no possible interactions between us and a nearby 3e37 kg molecular/
> > > >>> nebula cloud that may very well have extended enough to include our
> > > >>> solar system?
>
> > > >>>    ~ BG
>
> > > >>     The earth* is gravitational influenced be all mass and energy in the
> > > >>     observable universe. We are influence by Sirius A and B and even more
> > > >>     so by closer stars, but earth* is not gravitationally BOUND to any one
> > > >>     other star, as you would have us believe, Brad.
>
> > > >>     *Solar System
>
> > > > Yes, and whatever interacts with our solar system affects each and
> > > > every planet and moon.  Given enough nearby molecular/nebula density
> > > > and surrounding mass that's hot, not to mention if being hit directly
> > > > by a Sirius CME or a polar jet would be a bad day, week, month, year
> > > > century or longer.
>
> > >    Solar CMEs don't escape the solar system--why would Sirius A be any
> > >    different, Brad?
>
> > How about when it was a protostar/progenitor of 8.5+ Ms and
> > sufficiently nearby, or having either pole pointed at us.  Just
> > thinking what a halo CME of 1e18 kg leaving Sirius(B) at 20000 km/s
> > might accomplish.
>
> > Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
> > 8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
> > million years ago.
> >  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/
>
> >  ~ BG- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Its in lock step with Sirius ????   TreBert

Perhaps there's a barycenter consideration, which means our solar
system doesn't have to actually orbit Sirius.

We need more data in order to improve on this interpretation before we
can even call it a theory.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/26/10 11:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Perhaps there's a barycenter consideration, which means our solar
> system doesn't have to actually orbit Sirius.

Pick the sun and any other star--one can determine the center of
gravity of the two stars. That's not a barycenter. Barycenter is
a term applying only to a bodied orbiting each other.

"The barycenter of two bodies orbiting each other can be found by
calculating the distance between the more massive body and the
barycenter. This distance is given by the distance between the centers
of the two bodies, multiplied by the mass of the smaller body divided by
the combined mass of both bodies. If r1 is used to represent the
distance between the center of the larger mass and the barycenter, a is
used to represent the distance from the center of one mass to the center
of the other, and m1 and m2 are the masses of the larger and smaller
bodies, respectively, the following equation can be used: r1 = a * (m2 /
(m1 + m2)). If r1 is less than one, the barycenter is located inside the
more massive body".

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 26, 9:43 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/26/10 11:10 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Perhaps there's a barycenter consideration, which means our solar
> > system doesn't have to actually orbit Sirius.
>
>    Pick the sun and any other star--one can determine the center of
>    gravity of the two stars. That's not a barycenter. Barycenter is
>    a term applying only to a bodied orbiting each other.
>
> "The barycenter of two bodies orbiting each other can be found by
> calculating the distance between the more massive body and the
> barycenter. This distance is given by the distance between the centers
> of the two bodies, multiplied by the mass of the smaller body divided by
> the combined mass of both bodies. If r1 is used to represent the
> distance between the center of the larger mass and the barycenter, a is
> used to represent the distance from the center of one mass to the center
> of the other, and m1 and m2 are the masses of the larger and smaller
> bodies, respectively, the following equation can be used: r1 = a * (m2 /
> (m1 + m2)). If r1 is less than one, the barycenter is located inside the
> more massive body".

Thanks, I'll try to remember that.

Replace that barycenter notion with a black hole.

btw, everything out there is still in orbit around something.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/27/10 12:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:

> btw, everything out there is still in orbit around something.
>
> ~ BG

Not necessarily "around". Influenced, yes.

Check off if you are in orbit around"

Earth?
Moon?
Jupiter?
Sun?
Sirius?
Barnard's Star?
Sag A*?

We will see if you get any right answers!

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 27, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/10 12:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > btw, everything out there is still in orbit around something.
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    Not necessarily "around". Influenced, yes.
>
>    Check off if you are in orbit around"
>
>    Earth?
>    Moon?
>    Jupiter?
>    Sun?
>    Sirius?
>    Barnard's Star?
>    Sag A*?
>
>    We will see if you get any right answers!

You're discredits as to Newton are noted, as are your purely
subjective notions that a 3e37 kg worth of nearby mass is supposedly
insignificant and unable to capture anything.

What's that escape velocity again, away from that original molecular/
nebula mass of 3e37 kg, that which you have no idea as to its distance
from our solar system as of 260 million years ago?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 9/27/10 3:37 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 27, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/27/10 12:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> btw, everything out there is still in orbit around something.
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> Not necessarily "around". Influenced, yes.
>>
>> Check off if you are in orbit around"
>>
>> Earth?
>> Moon?
>> Jupiter?
>> Sun?
>> Sirius?
>> Barnard's Star?
>> Sag A*?
>>
>> We will see if you get any right answers!
>
> You're discredits as to Newton are noted, as are your purely
> subjective notions that a 3e37 kg worth of nearby mass is supposedly
> insignificant and unable to capture anything.
>
> What's that escape velocity again, away from that original molecular/
> nebula mass of 3e37 kg, that which you have no idea as to its distance
> from our solar system as of 260 million years ago?
>
> ~ BG

In other words, you cannot determine which bodies you are in orbit
about and which you are not.

Earth?
Moon?
Jupiter?
Sun?
Sirius?
Barnard's Star?
Sag A*?

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 27, 1:53 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/10 3:37 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 27, 1:23 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 9/27/10 12:04 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> btw, everything out there is still in orbit around something.
>
> >>>    ~ BG
>
> >>     Not necessarily "around". Influenced, yes.
>
> >>     Check off if you are in orbit around"
>
> >>     Earth?
> >>     Moon?
> >>     Jupiter?
> >>     Sun?
> >>     Sirius?
> >>     Barnard's Star?
> >>     Sag A*?
>
> >>     We will see if you get any right answers!
>
> > You're discredits as to Newton are noted, as are your purely
> > subjective notions that a 3e37 kg worth of nearby mass is supposedly
> > insignificant and unable to capture anything.
>
> > What's that escape velocity again, away from that original molecular/
> > nebula mass of 3e37 kg, that which you have no idea as to its distance
> > from our solar system as of 260 million years ago?
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    In other words, you cannot determine which bodies you are in orbit
>    about and which you are not.
>
>    Earth?
>    Moon?
>    Jupiter?
>    Sun?
>    Sirius?
>    Barnard's Star?
>    Sag A*?

Discrediting Newton seems to be the tall faith-based order of the day.

Even at 1024 light years requires 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order
to say clear of being influenced by any such 3e37 kg mass of molecular/
nebula cloud. Of course that also requires that we’re either not
heading into it or being overtaken. Gee whiz, what could possibly go
wrong?

~ BG

[palsing]

On Sep 27, 2:52 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even at 1024 light years requires 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order
> to say clear of being influenced by any such 3e37 kg mass of molecular/
> nebula cloud.  Of course that also requires that we’re either not
> heading into it or being overtaken.  Gee whiz, what could possibly go
> wrong?
>
>  ~ BG

Please read this...

<http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Interstellar+gas>

... and try to absorb some of the information there. There is nothing
unusual about our stellar neighborhood, we are not 'trapped' by a
giant dust cloud...

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 28, 7:37 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 27, 2:52 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Even at 1024 light years requires 20.3 km/sec escape velocity in order
> > to say clear of being influenced by any such 3e37 kg mass of molecular/
> > nebula cloud.  Of course that also requires that we’re either not
> > heading into it or being overtaken.  Gee whiz, what could possibly go
> > wrong?
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> Please read this...
>
> <http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Interstellar+gas>
>
> ... and try to absorb some of the information there. There is nothing
> unusual about our stellar neighborhood, we are not 'trapped' by a
> giant dust cloud...
>
> \Paul A

What part(s) of Newton's gravity do you not agree with?

What part of heading for or being overtaken by considerable mass isn't
ever a problem or an advantage?

~ BG

[palsing]

On Sep 28, 9:22 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> What part(s) of Newton's gravity do you not agree with?
>
> What part of heading for or being overtaken by considerable mass isn't
> ever a problem or an advantage?
>
>  ~ BG

Did you understand anything you read there?

Let's say you had this 10 gram cigar, and you smoke it. Afterwards you
only have 1 gram of ash left. What happened to the other 9 grams?
Where did it go? Did it magically disappear? It seems to be gone!
Well, it has dispersed into the rest of the atmosphere. Although all 9
grams of those smoke particles are 'somewhere', you would be hard-
pressed to find a single one of them, and they comprise a very, very
small part of your local atmosphere.

Something similar happens when stars are born within a collapsing dust
cloud. When the new stars eventually proceed to their fusion state,
they drive off the remaining bits of the cloud, which are dispersed
into the interstellar medium, where someday they may or may not
collapse again. That 3e37 kg mass that you have a hard-on for is
essentially everywhere now, and is so wide-spread that it doesn't have
enough density to affect anything.

Get over it, you are trying to make a big deal of practically nothing.

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 28, 9:54 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 9:22 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What part(s) of Newton's gravity do you not agree with?
>
> > What part of heading for or being overtaken by considerable mass isn't
> > ever a problem or an advantage?
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> Did you understand anything you read there?
>
> Let's say you had this 10 gram cigar, and you smoke it. Afterwards you
> only have 1 gram of ash left. What happened to the other 9 grams?
> Where did it go? Did it magically disappear? It seems to be gone!
> Well, it has dispersed into the rest of the atmosphere. Although all 9
> grams of those smoke particles are 'somewhere', you would be hard-
> pressed to find a single one of them, and they comprise a very, very
> small part of your local atmosphere.
>
> Something similar happens when stars are born within a collapsing dust
> cloud. When the new stars eventually proceed to their fusion state,
> they drive off the remaining bits of the cloud, which are dispersed
> into the interstellar medium, where someday they may or may not
> collapse again. That 3e37 kg mass that you have a hard-on for is
> essentially everywhere now, and is so wide-spread that it doesn't have
> enough density to affect anything.
>
> Get over it, you are trying to make a big deal of practically nothing.
>
> \Paul A

Supposedly there's something less than 1e41 kg worth of loose
molecular/nebula matter to draw whatever new stars and planets from.
That makes the estimated 3e37 kg of that Sirius molecular/nebula cloud
fairly significant, and for all we know it was situated nearby enough
and having hung around long enough to capture our solar system, and
you can not specify with any peer accepted swag that this terrific
amount of mass wasn't situated within a few light years from our
galaxy.

Your lack of offering any other feasible ideas as to what affected our
environment as of 260 some odd million years ago simply means that my
ongoing theory isn't any more half baked or unlikely than yours.

Just because solar systems and planets can capture rogue items when
their merging trajectories are just right, and/or when a lithobraking
encounter and other encounter related energy/mass loss improves those
odds of such captures, is no reason to exclude whatever galactic and
molecular/nebula cloud masses have to offer.

It's you that wants everyone to believe that laws of physics and
orbital dynamics that permits captures, is somehow conditional.
Meaning they can't ever apply to our solar system, much less cause any
reactions with our global environment.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 28, 9:54 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 28, 9:22 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What part(s) of Newton's gravity do you not agree with?
>
> > What part of heading for or being overtaken by considerable mass isn't
> > ever a problem or an advantage?
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> Did you understand anything you read there?
>
> Let's say you had this 10 gram cigar, and you smoke it. Afterwards you
> only have 1 gram of ash left. What happened to the other 9 grams?
> Where did it go? Did it magically disappear? It seems to be gone!
> Well, it has dispersed into the rest of the atmosphere. Although all 9
> grams of those smoke particles are 'somewhere', you would be hard-
> pressed to find a single one of them, and they comprise a very, very
> small part of your local atmosphere.
>
> Something similar happens when stars are born within a collapsing dust
> cloud. When the new stars eventually proceed to their fusion state,
> they drive off the remaining bits of the cloud, which are dispersed
> into the interstellar medium, where someday they may or may not
> collapse again. That 3e37 kg mass that you have a hard-on for is
> essentially everywhere now, and is so wide-spread that it doesn't have
> enough density to affect anything.
>
> Get over it, you are trying to make a big deal of practically nothing.
>
> \Paul A

Supposedly there's something less than 1e41 kg worth of loose
molecular/nebula matter to draw whatever new stars and planets from.
That makes the estimated 3e37 kg of that Sirius molecular/nebula cloud
fairly significant, and for all we know it was situated nearby enough
and having hung around long enough to capture our solar system, and
you can not specify with any peer accepted swag that this terrific
amount of mass wasn't situated within a few light years from our
galaxy.

What this also means is that more than 90% of the galactic progenitor
mass of molecular/nebula substance has been captured and turned into
stars, planets, moons, asteroids and everything else that's considered
as solid or that of a vapor/atmosphere. Those stars do not last
forever, and in fact give back roughly 90% of their mass in the form
of a molecular/nebula worthy substance, perhaps keeping that balance
of rogue molecular/nebula mass at roughly 10%.

Your lack of offering any feasible ideas as to what affected our
environment as of 260 some odd million years ago simply means that my
ongoing theory in progress isn't any more half baked or unlikely than
yours (which is essentially nothing).

Just because solar systems and planets can capture rogue items when
their merging trajectories are just right, and/or when a
lithobrakingencounter and other encounter related energy/mass loss
improves those odds of such captures, is no reason to exclude whatever
galactic and molecular/nebula cloud masses have to offer.

It's you that wants everyone to believe that laws of physics and
orbital dynamics that permits captures is somehow conditional, meaning
they can't ever apply to our solar system, much less cause any
reactions with our global environment.

Do you think the spare/surplus of all that molecular/nebula mass being
blown away from those terrific Sirius stars wasn't all that hot or
fast?

~ BG

[William Hamblen]

Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>> > as is shown by observation.
>
>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>

Yep. As far as anyone can tell, the Sun is not the companion of a
binary star. We are gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, but that is
another kettle of fish.

Bud

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, William Hamblen <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> >> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>> > as is shown by observation.
>
> >> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> > Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> > as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> > is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> > stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> Yep.  As far as anyone can tell, the Sun is not the companion of a
> binary star.  We are gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, but that is
> another kettle of fish.
>
> Bud

In other words, you're calling everything via ESA/Hipparcos and other
methods of identifying long period double/triple stars, as nothing but
bogus science?

~ BG

~ BG

[William Hamblen]

Brad Guth wrote:
> On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, William Hamblen<***@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
>>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>>
>>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
>>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
>>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>>
>>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
>>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
>>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
>>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>>
>> Yep. As far as anyone can tell, the Sun is not the companion of a
>> binary star. We are gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, but that is
>> another kettle of fish.
>>
>> Bud
>
> In other words, you're calling everything via ESA/Hipparcos and other
> methods of identifying long period double/triple stars, as nothing but
> bogus science?

Don't put words into my mouth.

Bud

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, William Hamblen <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, William Hamblen<***@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>
> >>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >> Yep.  As far as anyone can tell, the Sun is not the companion of a
> >> binary star.  We are gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, but that is
> >> another kettle of fish.
>
> >> Bud
>
> > In other words, you're calling everything via ESA/Hipparcos and other
> > methods of identifying long period double/triple stars, as nothing but
> > bogus science?
>
> Don't put words into my mouth.
>
> Bud

But those parrot words you got for us are totally subjective and/or
simply insufficient.

Are you suggesting that you happen to know where that terrific Sirius
molecular/nebula cloud actually was as of 260 some odd million years
BP, but are unwilling to share?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 7:22 pm, William Hamblen <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Brad Guth wrote:
> > On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, William Hamblen<***@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >>> On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> >>>> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>>> The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>>>>> as is shown by observation.
>
> >>>> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >>>> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >>>> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> >>> Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> >>> as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> >>> is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> >>> stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> >> Yep.  As far as anyone can tell, the Sun is not the companion of a
> >> binary star.  We are gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, but that is
> >> another kettle of fish.
>
> >> Bud
>
> > In other words, you're calling everything via ESA/Hipparcos and other
> > methods of identifying long period double/triple stars, as nothing but
> > bogus science?
>
> Don't put words into my mouth.
>
> Bud
In other words, those mainstream faith-based approved interpretations
are calling everything via ESA/Hipparcos and by any other methods of
identifying long period double/triple or multiple stars and that of
our galactic proper motions, as nothing but bogus/voodoo science
because our solar system is supposed to be an extra special one of a
kind that never acquired or having captured a damn thing, perhaps
because they want to insist that we have the only sun that’s allowed
to be rogue. I supposed there’s a first time for everything, so
therefore it’s technically possible that our sun is truly unique,
though I’d highly doubt it.

You are aware that everything out there (including our solar system)
is in orbit around and/or having been perturbed by something, and that
something has to include those sufficiently massive molecular/nebula
clouds (most likely worth 3e37 kg), like what created those nearby
Sirius stars that lasted for millions of years before there getting
blown away (as well as directly through us) by those terrific fusion
and CME saturated winds that were none too cool.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 24, 6:15 pm, William Hamblen <***@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 9/24/10 5:56 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> >> On Sep 24, 3:25 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > The solar system is not gravitational bound to any other star,
> >>> > as is shown by observation.
>
> >> In other words, you are saying that supposedly our solar system always
> >> was and remains as rogue. Then where exactly did our rogue solar
> >> system come from, if not from the same general area of the Milky Way?
>
> > Observations show the there are gravitational bound stars, such
> > as Sirius A and B, Procyon A and B, Caster, Pollux, etc. The Sun
> > is not gravitationally bound to another star. Gravitational bound
> > stars are in Keplerian orbits with eccentricity less than 1.
>
> Yep.  As far as anyone can tell, the Sun is not the companion of a
> binary star.  We are gravitationally bound to the Galaxy, but that is
> another kettle of fish.
>
> Bud

In other words, those faith-based approved interpretations are calling
everything via ESA/Hipparcos and other methods of identifying long
period double/triple or multiple stars and that of our galactic proper
motions as nothing but bogus science.

You are aware that everything out there (including our solar system)
is in orbit around and/or perturbed by something, and that something
includes those sufficiently massive molecular/nebula clouds, like what
created those nearby Sirius stars (most likely worth 3e37 kg) that
lasted for millions of years before getting blown away (directly
through us) by those terrific fusion and CME saturated winds that were
none too cool.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

Besides nova and supernova events that manage to unload most of their
mass within a relatively short period of time, where exactly do all
those terrific molecular/nebula clouds of all that terrific remainder
of mass go when a star is born and its fusion takes place, that which
supposedly blows it all away within a few million years.

Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
million years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/

How about those red supergiants that pulse or recycle by flaring up
as they sequence their way to becoming a white dwarf or conceivably a
neutron thing, tossing off those tens of trillions of tonnes/sec as
their final demise takes shape? (and where exactly did all of their
planets go?)

There are many stars much older (nearly three times older) than our
sun, as well as nearly countless newish stars, much like Sirius that
transpired or evolved into their existence right next to us as of
roughly 260 million some odd years ago (a mere cosmic minute), as well
as we can all see for ourselves those many newer stars that are just
now getting created or as having merged/combined with other stars or
having consumed substantial gas giant planets that essentially
refueled the primary star.

Our sun that's supposedly a little smaller than average is somewhere
in between all of that cosmic creation of new main sequence stuff and
whatever’s already existing or much older than our solar system, and
our galaxy has not been isolated or prevented from having its fair
share of cosmic mergers or encounters with other galaxies that for
whatever reasons got too close for their own good.

Our solar system is essentially parked right in the center of the
dispersed Sirius molecular cloud that's likely still worth <3e37 kg as
having been expanding away from us in all directions, with it's outer
shell perhaps only at most 2.65e5 light years out if using 0.1c as the
velocity of that molecular/nebula cloud expansion (more than likely
it’s only 2.6e4 ly out and doing a darn good job of simulating the CMB
noise that most everyone thinks is the BB CMBR).

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

Besides nova and supernova events that manage to unload most of their
mass within a relatively short period of time, where exactly did all
that terrific molecular/nebula cloud from all that terrific remainder
of mass go when a star is born and its terrific fusion takes place,
that which supposedly blows its birth cloud away within a few millions
of years.

Perhaps this one offers another interpretation as to what the original
8.5 Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then again just 60
million years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/

How about those red supergiants that pulse or recycle by flaring up
as they sequence their way to becoming a white dwarf or conceivably a
neutron thing, tossing off <100e12 tonnes/sec as their final demise
takes shape? (and where so we suppose all of their nebula created
planets go?)

There are many/most stars much older (nearly three times older) than
our sun, as well as nearly countless newish stars, much like Sirius
that materialized or evolved into their existence right next to us as
of roughly 260 million some odd years ago (a mere cosmic minute), as
well as we can all see for ourselves those many newer stars that are
just now getting created or as having merged/combined with other stars
or having consumed substantial gas giant planets that essentially
refueled the primary star.

Our sun that's supposedly a little smaller than average is somewhere
in between all of that cosmic creation of new main sequence stuff and
whatever’s already existing as much older than our solar system, and
it seems our galaxy has not been isolated or prevented from having its
fair share of cosmic mergers or encounters with other galaxies that
for whatever reasons got too close for their own good.

Our solar system is essentially parked right in the center of the
dispersed Sirius molecular cloud that's likely still worth <3e37 kg as
having been expanding away from us in all directions, with it's outer
shell perhaps only at most 2.65e5 light years out if using 0.1c as the
velocity of that molecular/nebula cloud expansion (more than likely
it’s only 2.6e4 ly out and doing a darn good job of simulating the CMB
noise that most everyone thinks is the BB CMBR).

For the same reasons why galaxies of considerable mass can’t seem to
avoid interacting with one another and even attracting mergers of
smaller satellite galaxies that happen to pass nearby (such as within
as great as 4r), whereas local star systems of sufficient mass similar
to what those Sirius stars had first represented along with their
terrific molecular/nebula cloud mass that tend to dominate or at the
very least perturb other local but usually smaller stars on a fairly
regular basis, should have included our solar system.

Here’s a subjective preview, as of few million years after our galaxy
interacts with Andromeda
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/format/xlarge_web/
http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/interacting-galaxies.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A4.html
What could possibly go wrong as our black holes tangle with the
Andromeda black holes, and loads of tidal binding forces cause cosmic
mergers and those long-range tidal interactions that unavoidably start
taking place?

Notice those ghostly 4+r extensions of those spiral Oort cloud like
features. How about we call them GOCs (Galactic Oort Clouds) or GGC’s
(Galactic Ghost Clouds) or GNCs (Galactic Nebula Clouds) that are far
reaching enough to pose a threat to anything encountering such cloud
density that’s likely offering clumps >1e9/cm3.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/24/

Perhaps you can help suggest to us where that Sirius originating
molecular/nebula cloud was as of 260+ million years ago, in
relationship to our wussy little solar system at that same time.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

Besides nova and supernova events that manage to unload most of their
mass within a relatively short period of time, where exactly did all
that terrific molecular/nebula cloud from all that terrific remainder
of its mass go when a star is born and its terrific fusion takes
place, that which supposedly blows its birth cloud away within a few
millions of years, has to be some nasty kind of wind.

Perhaps this one offers another viable interpretation as to what the
original 8.5+ Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then
again just 60 million years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/

How about those red supergiants that pulse or recycle by flaring up
as they sequence their way towards becoming a white dwarf or
conceivably a neutron thing, tossing off an average <100e12 tonnes/sec
and offering a few CMEs of >1e18 kg as their final demise takes shape?
(and where do we suppose all of their nebula created planets go?)

There are many/most stars much older (nearly three times older) than
our sun, as well as nearly countless newish stars, much like Sirius
that materialized or evolved into their existence right next to us as
of roughly 260 million some odd years ago (a mere cosmic minute), as
well as we can all see for ourselves those many newer stars that are
just now getting created or as having merged/combined with other stars
or as having consumed substantial gas giant planets that essentially
refueled the primary star that was otherwise headed for retirement.

Our sun that's supposedly a little smaller than average is somewhere
in between all of that cosmic creation of new main sequence stuff and
whatever’s already existing as much older than our solar system, and
it seems our galaxy has not been isolated or prevented from having its
fair share of cosmic mergers or encounters with other galaxies that
for whatever reasons got too close for their own good.

As is our solar system is essentially parked right in the center of
the dispersed Sirius molecular cloud that's likely still worth <3e37
kg as having been expanding away from us in all directions, with it's
outer shell perhaps only at most 2.65e5 light years out if using 0.1c
as the velocity of that molecular/nebula cloud expansion (more than
likely it’s something not much greater than 2.65e4 ly out and doing a
darn good job of simulating the CMB noise that most everyone thinks is
the BB CMBR).

For the same reasons why galaxies of considerable mass can’t seem to
avoid interacting with one another and even attracting mergers of
smaller satellite galaxies that happen to pass nearby (such as within
as great as 4r), whereas local star systems of sufficient mass similar
to what those Sirius stars had first represented along with their
terrific molecular/nebula cloud mass that tend to dominate or at the
very least perturb other local but usually smaller stars on a fairly
regular basis, should have included our solar system.

Here’s a perfectly subjective preview, as of few million years after
our galaxy has been interacting with Andromeda
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/format/xlarge_web/
http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/interacting-galaxies.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A4.html
What could possibly go wrong as our black holes tangle with those
Andromeda black holes, and loads of tidal binding forces cause cosmic
mergers and those long-range tidal interactions that should
unavoidably start taking place?

Notice these ghostly 4+r extensions of those spiral Oort cloud like
features. How about we call them GOCs (Galactic Oort Clouds) or GGC’s
(Galactic Ghost Clouds) or GNCs (Galactic Nebula Clouds) that are far
reaching enough to pose a threat to anything encountering such cloud
density that’s likely offering clumps >1e9/cm3.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/24/

Perhaps you can help suggest to us where that Sirius originating
molecular/nebula cloud was as of 260+ million years ago, in
relationship to our wussy little solar system at that same time.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away from Sirius, and there’s simply no telling where that
> Sirius molecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sized Sirius mass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol and Sirius used to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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 at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

Besides nova and supernova events that manage to unload most of their
mass within a relatively short period of time, where exactly did all
that terrific molecular/nebula cloud of all that terrific remainder of
mass go when a star is born and its terrific fusion takes place, that
which supposedly blows its birth cloud away within a few millions of
years, has to be some nasty kind of solar wind.

Perhaps this one offers another viable interpretation as to what the
original 8.5+ Ms of Sirius(B) did to us as of 260 million and then
again just 60 million years ago.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39313528/ns/technology_and_science-space/

How about those red supergiants that pulse or recycle by flaring up
as they sequence their way towards becoming a white dwarf or
conceivably a neutron thing, tossing off an average <100e12 tonnes/sec
and offering a few CMEs of >1e18 kg as their final demise takes shape?
(and where do we suppose all of their nebula created planets have
gone?)

There are many/most stars much older (nearly three times older) than
our sun, as well as nearly countless newish stars, much like Sirius
that materialized or evolved into their existence right next to us as
of roughly 260 million some odd years ago (a mere cosmic minute), as
well as we can all see for ourselves those many newer stars that are
just now getting created or as having merged/combined with other stars
or as having consumed substantial gas giant planets that essentially
refueled the primary star that was otherwise headed for retirement.

Our sun that's supposedly a little smaller than average is somewhere
in between all of that cosmic creation of new main sequence stuff and
whatever’s already existing as much older than our solar system, and
it seems our galaxy has not been isolated or prevented from having its
fair share of cosmic mergers or encounters with other galaxies that
for whatever reasons got too close for their own good.

A little math correction: As is our solar system is essentially
parked right in the center of the dispersed Sirius molecular cloud
that's likely still worth <3e37 kg as having been expanding away from
us in all directions, with it's outer shell perhaps only at most
2.65e7 light years out if using 0.1c as the constant exit velocity of
that molecular/nebula cloud expansion (more than likely it’s something
not much greater than 2.65e6 ly out, down to averaging 1%c and still
doing a darn good job of simulating the CMB noise that most everyone
thinks is the BB CMBR).

For the same reasons why nearby galaxies of considerable mass can’t
seem to avoid interacting with one another and even attracting mergers
of smaller satellite galaxies that happen to pass nearby (such as
within as great as 4r), whereas local star systems of sufficient mass
similar to what those Sirius stars had first represented along with
their terrific molecular/nebula cloud mass that tend to dominate or at
the very least perturb other local but usually smaller stars on a
fairly regular basis, should have included our solar system.

Here’s a perfectly subjective preview, as of few million years after
our galaxy has been interacting with Andromeda
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/25/image/a/format/xlarge_web/
http://conservationreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/interacting-galaxies.jpg
http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect20/A4.html
What could possibly go wrong as our black holes tangle with those
Andromeda black holes, and loads of tidal binding forces cause cosmic
mergers and those long-range tidal interactions that should
unavoidably start taking place?

Notice these ghostly 4+r extensions of those spiral Oort cloud like
features. How about we call them GOCs (Galactic Oort Clouds) or GGC’s
(Galactic Ghost Clouds) or GNCs (Galactic Nebula Clouds) that are far
reaching enough to pose a threat to anything encountering such cloud
density that’s likely offering clumps >1e9/cm3.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/24/

Perhaps you can help suggest to us where that Sirius originating
molecular/nebula cloud was as of 260+ million years ago, in
relationship to our wussy little solar system at that same time.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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”,
> 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> headed away fromSirius, and there’s simply no telling where thatSiriusmolecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> years ago.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> representing a currentSirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> headed back towards that drastically down-sizedSiriusmass at 7.6 km/
> s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> tidal capture link between Sol andSiriusused to have something near
> 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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
> thatSiriusemerged at roughly the exact same time as our global
> environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> system changed forever.
>
>  ~ BG

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 a 9+). There are apparently a few
extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
worth 16<24 Ms.

Our sun 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 loss that’s as of lately running at somewhat less than 3e12 kg/
sec, could even be as little as 1e12 kg/sec).

Mainstream astronomy and physics would suggest that our sun is
currently losing only 4e9 kg/sec, however at that rate it’ll take 4.5
trillion years to sufficiently deplete itself in order to turn into a
red giant before ever becoming the 0.33 Ms white dwarf, and most of us
realize that 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 least 3e9 tonnes/sec.

Our eventual white dwarf will likely become the size of Mars, as
somewhat less than medium sized at 0.33<0.5 Ms.

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

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 packung
enough density that’ll affect most anything within a few 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.

Either way, it’s looking as though our Sirius(B) was originally worth
at least 8.5 <9.5 Ms, 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 2000 km/sec by the time such winds interacted with our
nearby solar system, is perhaps also what helped to blow away whatever
surviving planets that had already been released from their original
Sirius gravity binding force, because there’s no way any star reduced
to 1/8th mass is ever going to keep its planets.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/9/10 5:38 PM, 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 a 9+). There are apparently a few
> extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
> white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
> worth 16<24 Ms.

Maximum white dwarf mass is 1,44 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/10 5:38 PM, 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 a 9+).  There are apparently a few
> > extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
> > white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
> > worth 16<24 Ms.
>
>    Maximum white dwarf mass is 1,44 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).

What if Sirius(C) merged with Sirius(B), or got consumed by its red
supergiant phase?

I like to think of the relatively nearby and sudden Sirius(B) demise
as a soft/slow nova event that didn't have quite enough remainder to
create a neutron star. At any rate, the amount of nebula created mass
that expanded away along with whatever surviving planets is what our
solar system got nailed by, for a second time (roughly 200 million
years apart).

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/10/10 4:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/9/10 5:38 PM, 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 a 9+). There are apparently a few
>>> extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
>>> white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
>>> worth 16<24 Ms.
>>
>> Maximum white dwarf mass is 1,44 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).
>
> What if Sirius(C) merged with Sirius(B), or got consumed by its red
> supergiant phase?
>
> I like to think of the relatively nearby and sudden Sirius(B) demise
> as a soft/slow nova event that didn't have quite enough remainder to
> create a neutron star. At any rate, the amount of nebula created mass
> that expanded away along with whatever surviving planets is what our
> solar system got nailed by, for a second time (roughly 200 million
> years apart).
>
> ~ BG

The orbital elements of Sirius A and B rule out a "Sirius C",
brad. Sirius B is too far away to accumulate gas sufficient to
go nova.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 10, 2:46 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/10 4:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/9/10 5:38 PM, 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 a 9+).  There are apparently a few
> >>> extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
> >>> white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
> >>> worth 16<24 Ms.
>
> >>     Maximum white dwarf mass is 1,44 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).
>
> > What if Sirius(C) merged with Sirius(B), or got consumed by its red
> > supergiant phase?
>
> > I like to think of the relatively nearby and sudden Sirius(B) demise
> > as a soft/slow nova event that didn't have quite enough remainder to
> > create a neutron star.  At any rate, the amount of nebula created mass
> > that expanded away along with whatever surviving planets is what our
> > solar system got nailed by, for a second time (roughly 200 million
> > years apart).
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    The orbital elements of Sirius A and B rule out a "Sirius C",
>    brad. Sirius B is too far away to accumulate gas sufficient to
>    go nova.

60+ million years BP? Think again.

You can tell us what happen with our sun as of the last ice age, so
don't give us any further mainstream crap about whatever Sirius had or
didn't have as of 60+ million years ago.

~ BG.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/10/10 5:13 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2:46 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/10 4:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/9/10 5:38 PM, 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 a 9+). There are apparently a few
>>>>> extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
>>>>> white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
>>>>> worth 16<24 Ms.
>>
>>>> Maximum white dwarf mass is 1,44 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).
>>
>>> What if Sirius(C) merged with Sirius(B), or got consumed by its red
>>> supergiant phase?
>>
>>> I like to think of the relatively nearby and sudden Sirius(B) demise
>>> as a soft/slow nova event that didn't have quite enough remainder to
>>> create a neutron star. At any rate, the amount of nebula created mass
>>> that expanded away along with whatever surviving planets is what our
>>> solar system got nailed by, for a second time (roughly 200 million
>>> years apart).
>>
>>> ~ BG
>>
>> The orbital elements of Sirius A and B rule out a "Sirius C",
>> brad. Sirius B is too far away to accumulate gas sufficient to
>> go nova.
>
> 60+ million years BP? Think again.
>
> You can tell us what happen with our sun as of the last ice age, so
> don't give us any further mainstream crap about whatever Sirius had or
> didn't have as of 60+ million years ago.
>
> ~ BG.
>
> ~ BG

Hey Brad--Wake up. No evidence! No theory. No nothing.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 10, 3:23 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/10 5:13 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 2:46 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/10/10 4:40 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 10/9/10 5:38 PM, 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 a 9+).  There are apparently a few
> >>>>> extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
> >>>>> white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
> >>>>> worth 16<24 Ms.
>
> >>>>      Maximum white dwarf mass is 1,44 solar masses (Chandrasekhar limit).
>
> >>> What if Sirius(C) merged with Sirius(B), or got consumed by its red
> >>> supergiant phase?
>
> >>> I like to think of the relatively nearby and sudden Sirius(B) demise
> >>> as a soft/slow nova event that didn't have quite enough remainder to
> >>> create a neutron star.  At any rate, the amount of nebula created mass
> >>> that expanded away along with whatever surviving planets is what our
> >>> solar system got nailed by, for a second time (roughly 200 million
> >>> years apart).
>
> >>>    ~ BG
>
> >>     The orbital elements of Sirius A and B rule out a "Sirius C",
> >>     brad. Sirius B is too far away to accumulate gas sufficient to
> >>     go nova.
>
> > 60+ million years BP?  Think again.
>
> > You can't tell us what happen with our sun as of the last ice age, so
> > don't give us any further mainstream crap about whatever Sirius had or
> > didn't have as of 60+ million years ago.
>
> >   ~ BG.
>
>    Hey Brad--Wake up. No evidence! No theory. No nothing.

Right back at you.

Please explain gravity while you're at it.

Where did the proto-Earth like planet Venus come from?

When exactly (+/- one year) did Earth get its seasonal tilt?

Where's that item that smacked into the lunar south pole and left that
impressive 2500 km crater?

Don't stop there, because you might as well tell us where the singular
BB started, because there really should be one hell of a big bang hole
or void.

Tell us what nailed Earth as of 260 some odd million years ago, and
then once again as of 60 some odd million years ago.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/10/10 6:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Don't stop there, because you might as well tell us where the singular
> BB started, because there really should be one hell of a big bang hole
> or void.

This is an other example that you hve no clue, Brad. The BB happened
everywhere.

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 10, 4:56 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/10 6:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Don't stop there, because you might as well tell us where the singular
> > BB started, because there really should be one hell of a big bang hole
> > or void.
>
>    This is an other example that you hve no clue, Brad. The BB happened
>    everywhere.
>
>    No Center
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
>    Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
>    WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
>    WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

If you and other Semite approved rusemaster parrots say so, then it
must be true. I'm certain Alan Guth agrees with you, but then so
would the Rothschilds and others that you aspire to.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/10/10 10:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:56 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/10/10 6:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> Don't stop there, because you might as well tell us where the singular
>>> BB started, because there really should be one hell of a big bang hole
>>> or void.
>>
>> This is an other example that you have no clue, Brad. The BB happened
>> everywhere.
>>
>> No Center
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>>
>> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>>
>> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
>> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>>
>> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
>> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
>
> If you and other Semite approved rusemaster parrots say so, then it
> must be true. I'm certain Alan Guth agrees with you, but then so
> would the Rothschilds and others that you aspire to.
>
> ~ BG

Observation, Brad. Tested laws of physics, Brad. People aren't the
arbiters of reality--observation is!

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 10, 9:11 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/10 10:49 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 10, 4:56 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/10/10 6:36 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> Don't stop there, because you might as well tell us where the singular
> >>> BB started, because there really should be one hell of a big bang hole
> >>> or void.
>
> >>     This is an other example that you have no clue, Brad. The BB happened
> >>     everywhere.
>
> >>     No Center
> >>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> >>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> >>     Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> >>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> >>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> >>      http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
> >>     WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> >>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> >>     WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> >>      http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
>
> > If you and other Semite approved rusemaster parrots say so, then it
> > must be true.  I'm certain Alan Guth agrees with you, but then so
> > would the Rothschilds and others that you aspire to.
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    Observation, Brad. Tested laws of physics, Brad. People aren't the
>    arbiters of reality--observation is!

But you don't believe in observation (at least not of anything local)
unless it's NASA eyecandy fortified and you get to cherry-pick through
the numbers.

With new and improved science instruments, there's more coming out
each and day that doesn't add up.

Would you care to interpret your observations of "The Great
Attractor", "The Great Wall" and a little something about all of those
colliding/merging galaxies, for us?

Would you care to elaborate why orbital mechanics keeps our solar
system isolated and thus protected from whatever rogue or merging
galactic stuff?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/11/10 12:07 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Would you care to elaborate why orbital mechanics keeps our solar
> system isolated and thus protected from whatever rogue or merging
> galactic stuff?
>
> ~ BG

What rogue or merging galactic stuff?

[Chris.B]

On Oct 11, 8:21 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/10 12:07 AM,BG Troll Esq. twittered:
>
> > Would you care to elaborate why orbital mechanics keeps our solar
> > system isolated and thus protected from whatever rogue or merging
> > galactic stuff?
>
> >   ~ Brenda
>
>    What rogue or merging galactic stuff?

What he said.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 11, 11:21 am, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/11/10 12:07 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > Would you care to elaborate why orbital mechanics keeps our solar
> > system isolated and thus protected from whatever rogue or merging
> > galactic stuff?
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    What rogue or merging galactic stuff?

Good one. We always need zingers from our mainstream clowns and
parrots.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 9, 3:38 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 11:43 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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”,
> > 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 mass of <3e37 kg and the fact that we’re still not
> > headed away fromSirius, and there’s simply no telling where thatSiriusmolecular/nebula cloud was to begin with as of 260+ million
> > years ago.
>
> > Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> > there’s 2005-VX3/damocloid(icy asteroid) of 112 km diameter as perhaps
> > worth at most 1.47e18 kg, that’s still hanging with us all the way out
> > to 2275.5 AU(3.4e14 m) that’s worth a pathetic tidal radii gravity
> > binding force of merely 1.71e9 N, and apparently even it’s not going
> > away from our solar system's tidal radii grip.  It seems that’s
> > representing a currentSirius/XV3 ratio as having nearly 83e6:1
> > greater tidal radii hold on us, not to mention that we seem to be
> > headed back towards that drastically down-sizedSiriusmass at 7.6 km/
> > s and unavoidably accelerating, pretty much exactly as any elliptical
> > Newtonian orbital trek should.
>
> > That mass ratio as a offering a gravity binding force and subsequent
> > tidal capture link between Sol andSiriusused to have something near
> > 4.25e6 fold as much mass as nowadays to work with, and there’s still
> > no objective way of telling how close we 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 just
> > outside of that original molecular/nebula cloud), whereas that’s only
> > looking at our receiving a thousand fold more proton density and
> > 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 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 research and run through these numbers a few more
> > times, as well as having to revise my topic to suit, 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
> > thatSiriusemerged at roughly the exact same time as our global
> > environment and a few other considerations about our nearby solar
> > system changed forever.
>
> >  ~ BG
>
> 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 a 9+).  There are apparently a few
> extremely large supernova like SN 2007if suggesting an extra-massive
> white dwarf that exceed 2 Ms, and those might have started out as
> worth 16<24 Ms.
>
> Our sun 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 loss that’s as of lately running at somewhat less than 3e12 kg/
> sec, could even be as little as 1e12 kg/sec).
>
> Mainstream astronomy and physics would suggest that our sun is
> currently losing only 4e9 kg/sec, however at that rate it’ll take 4.5
> trillion years to sufficiently deplete itself in order to turn into a
> red giant before ever becoming the 0.33 Ms white dwarf, and most of us
> realize that 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 least 3e9 tonnes/sec.
>
> Our eventual white dwarf will likely become the size of Mars, as
> somewhat less than medium sized at 0.33<0.5 Ms.
>
> 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-dwa...
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf%E2%80%93Rayet_star
>
> 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 packung
> enough density that’ll affect most anything within a few 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.
>
> Either way, it’s looking as though our Sirius(B) was originally worth
> at least 8.5 <9.5 Ms, 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 2000 km/sec by the time such winds interacted with our
> nearby solar system, is perhaps also what helped to blow away whatever
> surviving planets that had already been released from their original
> Sirius gravity binding force, because there’s no way any star reduced
> to 1/8th mass is ever going to keep its planets.
>
>  ~ BG

Our resident naysayer and all-knowing pretender, Sam Wormley, seems to
think if something doesn't exist as objectively right here and now,
then it obviously never existed. Where the hell was Sam Wormley
hiding when there were in fact no such Muslim WMD? (as in zilch, nada,
zero, and so therefore they too should have never existed and thus
over a million innocent lives saved, trillions of our hard earned loot
not wasted and a decade that could have instead been invested doing
better things)

I wonder what else our mainstream status-quo Sam Wormley’s closed
mindset is in denial about, as having never seen or had reliably
objective confirmation of, so that they too never existed or ever
happened. Of course his selective use of conditional physics wants to
insist there was a singular big bang as of only a short cosmic time
ago, even though there’s no such objective BB evidence.

Pretending that all them stars are pretty much exactly as they were as
of their creation 13.7 billion years ago, and always expanding away
from us, is actually quite a stretch that only a true rusemaster of
his own faith-based domain can ever brag about.

Pretending that our solar system is somehow isolated and independently
rogue so that other stars and massive molecular/nebula mass never
interact with us, or us with them, is yet another fancy conditional-
physics voodoo that our Sam Wormley has the utmost faith in, just like
he pretends that religion and government have never told a lie or much
less having obfuscated facts nor perpetrated any mutually beneficial
conspiracy, because supposedly there’s no such thing as bad guys in
either of those camps, much less any bad Semites.

So, why isn’t Sam Wormley in charge of some big important agency,
instead of being here because of the risk that I and few others
impose?

Where exactly does our Sam Wormley get the bulk of his income and
benefits from, if not from our public-funded cookie jar?

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

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 reduced mass and distance, although Sirius didn’t always represent
such little.

With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should 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 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 detect those
as large or larger than Venus which happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though
even Earth at 128 mw/m2 shouldn’t be 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 became icy should keep that
average heat flux below 16 mw/m2, which is still relatively hot
compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps at most 0.1 mw/m2.

Apparently there’s also a few black holes of a billion solar masses
going rogue headed away from their galactic core which likely had
multiple ultra massive <10 billion 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 will eventually
end up. I can imagine that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could provide
multiple rogue BHs.

Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
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’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radii
grip. It seems this is representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as got
Sirius having a nearly 83e6:1 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 4.25e6 fold as much mass as 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 every bit as great as that of what
our sun was providing.

~ BG

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 6:31 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 reduced mass and distance, although Sirius didn’t always represent
> such little.
>
> With <6% of stars being white dwarfs should 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 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 detect those
> as large or larger than Venus which happens to emit 20.5 w/m2, though
> even Earth at 128 mw/m2 shouldn’t be 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 became icy should keep that
> average heat flux below 16 mw/m2, which is still relatively hot
> compared to the surrounding ISM of perhaps at most 0.1 mw/m2.
>
> Apparently there’s also a few black holes of a billion solar masses
> going rogue headed away from their galactic core which likely had
> multiple ultra massive <10 billion 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 will eventually
> end up.  I can imagine that a few galaxies of <5e44 kg could provide
> multiple rogue BHs.
>
> Not to continually nitpick, however, besides our reddish icy Sedna
> 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’s not going away from our solar system's tidal radii
> grip.  It seems this is representing a current Sirius/XV3 ratio as got
> Sirius having a nearly 83e6:1 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 4.25e6 fold as much mass as 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 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 a 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 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 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 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 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 every bit as great as that of what
> our sun was providing.
>
>  ~ BG

As a fast burning star goes from bad to worse, 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 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).

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 loss that’s as of lately running at somewhat less than
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.

Just to give us some better idea about this. If our sun were 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 same thing happened for Sirius(B),
except much worse because of its original mass and the much shorter
timeline.

Mainstream published astronomy and astrophysics would suggest that our
sun is currently losing 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<.33 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.

Either way, it’s looking as though our Sirius(B) was originally worth
at least 8.5<9.5 Ms, 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 2000 km/sec by the time such winds interacted with our nearby
solar system, is perhaps also what helped to blow away whatever
surviving planets that had already been released from their original
Sirius gravity binding force, 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 and that number could even
be as great as 1e12 if we included 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 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 and orbital simulations should
be capable of suggesting where certain rogue items (including clouds
of relatively cool molecular/nebula mass) well end up.

BradGuth 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

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/12/10 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> As a fast burning star goes from bad to worse, 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 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.

Novae can occur in binary systems involving a white dwarf and a
main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
gas to the white dwarf. Creature on planets around such a system
should find another home.

[JT]

On 12 Okt, 22:48, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/10 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > As a fast burning star goes from bad to worse, 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 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.
>
>    Novae can occur in binary systems involving a white dwarf and a
>    main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
>    gas to the white dwarf. Creature on planets around such a system
>    should find another home.

A single star in a gascloud could go nova again and again until it
reach critical mass. Since galaxies and stars are born out of gas
clouds from the youth of universe there is nothing preventing a more
cyclic mature of most stars. Only ones with a gigantic neighbour that
exhaust all gas by a greater gravitational pull on the gas within the
interstellar medium will be prevented from following the lifecycle of
stars to protostars and supernovas.

Since there is still a gas cloud around Sirius it will keep on
building up until it finally goes supernova or the gas get exhausted,
there is no predetermed timeline for periodic novas, it is the density
of the gas and dust in the interstellar medium versus how great
gravitational pull that affect the period of the cyclic Nova.

Some says there is gas and dust around Sirius if that is true it is
only a matter of time for the cycle to finish, there is no maybe.
On the other side if the material around Sirius is exhausted then it
won't

The fact that we do not see a high percentag of stars going Nova again
and again is not because they do not. It is because our lifecycles
here on earth is on another scale.

JT

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 2:19 pm, JT <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12 Okt, 22:48, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/12/10 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > > As a fast burning star goes from bad to worse, 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 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.
>
> >    Novae can occur in binary systems involving a white dwarf and a
> >    main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
> >    gas to the white dwarf. Creature on planets around such a system
> >    should find another home.
>
> A single star in a gascloud could go nova again and again until it
> reach critical mass. Since galaxies and stars are born out of gas
> clouds from the youth of universe there is nothing preventing a more
> cyclic mature of most stars. Only ones with a gigantic neighbour that
> exhaust all gas by a greater gravitational pull on the gas within the
> interstellar medium will be prevented from following the lifecycle of
> stars to protostars and supernovas.
>
> Since there is still a gas cloud around Sirius it will keep on
> building up until it finally goes supernova or the gas get exhausted,
> there is no predetermed timeline for periodic novas, it is the density
> of the gas and dust in the interstellar medium versus how great
> gravitational pull that affect the period of the cyclic Nova.
>
> Some says there is gas and dust around Sirius if that is true it is
> only a matter of time for the cycle to finish, there is no maybe.
> On the other side if the material around Sirius is exhausted then it
> won't
>
> The fact that we do not see a high percentage of stars going Nova again
> and again is not because they do not. It is because our lifecycles
> here on earth is on another scale.
>
> JT

Exactly, whereas our best life-cycle awareness or swag as to what
stars can or can not do is say worth 1000 years, and as such is
expecting a lot of speculative interpretation, other than having the
advantage of looking back in time 13.7 some odd billion years isn't
too shabby.

~ BG

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 2:52 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Exactly, whereas our best life-cycle awareness or swag as to what
> stars can or can not do is say worth 1000 years, and as such is
> expecting a lot of speculative interpretation, other than having the
> advantage of looking back in time 13.7 some odd billion years isn't
> too shabby.

"Never stretch the truth beyond the limits of the recipient"

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 3:08 pm, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2:52 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Exactly, whereas our best life-cycle awareness or swag as to what
> > stars can or can not do is say worth 1000 years, and as such is
> > expecting a lot of speculative interpretation, other than having the
> > advantage of looking back in time 13.7 some odd billion years isn't
> > too shabby.
>
> "Never stretch the truth beyond the limits of the recipient"

Now you're into quoting dead people?

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 6:12 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 3:08 pm, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 2:52 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Exactly, whereas our best life-cycle awareness or swag as to what
> > > stars can or can not do is say worth 1000 years, and as such is
> > > expecting a lot of speculative interpretation, other than having the
> > > advantage of looking back in time 13.7 some odd billion years isn't
> > > too shabby.
>
> > "Never stretch the truth beyond the limits of the recipient"
>
> Now you're into quoting dead people?

But... but... I'm not yet dead...

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/12/10 4:19 PM, JT wrote:
> On 12 Okt, 22:48, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 10/12/10 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>> >
>>> > > As a fast burning star goes from bad to worse, 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 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.
>> >
>> > Novae can occur in binary systems involving a white dwarf and a
>> > main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
>> > gas to the white dwarf. Creature on planets around such a system
>> > should find another home.

> A single star in a gascloud could go nova again and again until it
> reach critical mass. Since galaxies and stars are born out of gas
> clouds from the youth of universe there is nothing preventing a more
> cyclic mature of most stars. Only ones with a gigantic neighbour that
> exhaust all gas by a greater gravitational pull on the gas within the
> interstellar medium will be prevented from following the lifecycle of
> stars to protostars and supernovas.
>

Novae involve white dwarfs and gas much more plentiful that the
interstellar medium.

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 2:19 pm, JT <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A single star in a gascloud could go nova again and again until it
> reach critical mass.

Not accurate. ALL novas are in binary systems... unless, of course,
you have PROOF otherwise.

“That is the definition of faith -- acceptance of that which we
imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.”
- Dan Brown

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 3:07 pm, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2:19 pm, JT <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A single star in a gascloud could go nova again and again until it
> > reach critical mass.
>
> Not accurate. ALL novas are in binary systems... unless, of course,
> you have PROOF otherwise.
>
> “That is the definition of faith -- acceptance of that which we
> imagine to be true, that which we cannot prove.”
> - Dan Brown
>
> \Paul A

Rogue stuff runs to other stuff all the time, as well as whole
galaxies collide/merge or interact.

Would you care to estimate as to how much rogue stuff our galaxy has
that's Ceres or larger? (I'll go so far as to suggest that it's a
number worth more than all the stars)

~ BG

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 6:18 pm, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Would you care to estimate as to how much rogue stuff our galaxy has
> that's Ceres or larger?

No, that would be a waste of time... and besides, you have not given
us your particular definition of 'rogue', and it could have a variety
of meanings...

This guy is definitely dead...

"The first priest was the first rogue who met the first fool"
- Voltaire

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 1:48 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/10 8:49 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > As a fast burning star goes from bad to worse, 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 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.
>
>    Novae can occur in binary systems involving a white dwarf and a
>    main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
>    gas to the white dwarf. Creatures on planets around such a system
>    should find another home.

I'll buy that.

However, even a very massive and fast/hard living star like Sirius(B)
had to have been somewhat like a slow/soft nova, especially towards
the end of its red supergiant phase.

Any idea where the planets of Sirius(B) went?

If exiting away from Sirius(B) at only 32 km/sec, it could not have
gotten too far. I calculate a trek of 6.055e12 km if based upon 60
million years worth of spiraling away. It would be fun and a real
learning experience to run this with different velocities and time-
lines. I might expect the exit spiral trajectory velocity having to
be as great as 48 km/sec, although Sirius(A) could have kicked that up
to 64 km/sec and taken a lot of the spiral out of its trajectory.

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/12/10 5:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> However, even a very massive and fast/hard living star like Sirius(B)
> had to have been somewhat like a slow/soft nova, especially towards
> the end of its red supergiant phase.

Novae only occur in binary star systems involving a white dwarf and
a main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
gas to the white dwarf. The creation of a white dwarf is not a nova.

A nova (pl. novae) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion caused by the
accretion of hydrogen onto the surface of a white dwarf star, which
ignites and starts nuclear fusion in a runaway manner.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 5:27 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/10 5:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> > However, even a very massive and fast/hard living star like Sirius(B)
> > had to have been somewhat like a slow/soft nova, especially towards
> > the end of its red supergiant phase.
>
>    Novae only occur in binary star systems involving a white dwarf and
>    a main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
>    gas to the white dwarf. The creation of a white dwarf is not a nova.
>
>    A nova (pl. novae) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion caused by the
>    accretion of hydrogen onto the surface of a white dwarf star, which
>    ignites and starts nuclear fusion in a runaway manner.

Call it whatever you like. A massive star like Sirius(B) needed to
average losing 2.5e12 tonnes/sec, and its molecular/nebula cloud was
likely worth <3e37 kg that also had to get blown away in a relatively
short period of time.

How close would have been too close for us?

~ BG

[Sam Wormley]

On 10/12/10 8:11 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On Oct 12, 5:27 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/12/10 5:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>>
>>> However, even a very massive and fast/hard living star like Sirius(B)
>>> had to have been somewhat like a slow/soft nova, especially towards
>>> the end of its red supergiant phase.
>>
>> Novae only occur in binary star systems involving a white dwarf and
>> a main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
>> gas to the white dwarf. The creation of a white dwarf is not a nova.
>>
>> A nova (pl. novae) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion caused by the
>> accretion of hydrogen onto the surface of a white dwarf star, which
>> ignites and starts nuclear fusion in a runaway manner.
>
> Call it whatever you like. A massive star like Sirius(B) needed to
> average losing 2.5e12 tonnes/sec, and its molecular/nebula cloud was
> likely worth<3e37 kg that also had to get blown away in a relatively
> short period of time.
>
> How close would have been too close for us?
>
> ~ BG

Sirius be is obviously less that 1.44 solar masses and, yes, any
planetary nebula has drifted or diffused into the interstellar medium
long ago.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 6:36 pm, Sam Wormley <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/10 8:11 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 5:27 pm, Sam Wormley<***@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/12/10 5:28 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
> >>> However, even a very massive and fast/hard living star like Sirius(B)
> >>> had to have been somewhat like a slow/soft nova, especially towards
> >>> the end of its red supergiant phase.
>
> >>     Novae only occur in binary star systems involving a white dwarf and
> >>     a main sequence or red giant star that are close enough to transfer
> >>     gas to the white dwarf. The creation of a white dwarf is not a nova.
>
> >>     A nova (pl. novae) is a cataclysmic nuclear explosion caused by the
> >>     accretion of hydrogen onto the surface of a white dwarf star, which
> >>     ignites and starts nuclear fusion in a runaway manner.
>
> > Call it whatever you like.  A massive star like Sirius(B) needed to
> > average losing 2.5e12 tonnes/sec, and its molecular/nebula cloud was
> > likely worth<3e37 kg that also had to get blown away in a relatively
> > short period of time.
>
> > How close would have been too close for us?
>
> >   ~ BG
>
>    Sirius be is obviously less that 1.44 solar masses and, yes, any
>    planetary nebula has drifted or diffused into the interstellar medium
>    long ago.

Not so long ago, and not so far as you might care to think.

~ BG

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 6:31 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> ... I’ll likely have to further research and run through these numbers a
> few more times...

Ya think???

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 7:53 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 6:31 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... I’ll likely have to further research and run through these numbers a
> > few more times...
>
> Ya think???

You're not helping with this topic, but then what else should we
expect.

Why don't you post a topic of "Everything is exactly as I say, as in
take it or leave it"

or how about "Einstein was right about absolutely every, including
beating his wife"

or try "Puppets-R-Us, and damn proud of it" with a sub topic of
"Mainstream Rocks"

~ BG

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 8:58 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> You're not helping with this topic, but then what else should we
> expect.

I've responded to you before, but you insist on ignoring Good Science,
and you don't really want the help. Instead, you cling desperately to
wild speculation, most of which is just impossible.

"It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking
too much."
- Yogi Berra

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 9:11 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:58 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You're not helping with this topic, but then what else should we
> > expect.
>
> I've responded to you before, but you insist on ignoring Good Science,
> and you don't really want the help. Instead, you cling desperately to
> wild speculation, most of which is just impossible.
>
> "It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking
> too much."
> - Yogi Berra
>
> \Paul A

This topic of "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?" is not about
being another brown-nosed clown or parrot of your mainstream status
quo. If it were, what would be the point?

Astrophysics is changing its tune and its tap-dance almost every time
any new and improved space telescope or even terrestrial based
astronomy gets a better look-see or enhanced instrument readings.

Even the most devout relativity lovers of all things Einstein are
simply without a clue as to why their precious theory doesn't always
hold true, especially when those pesky sunspot cycles and significant
cosmic events alter the local nuclear rate of decay, and otherwise
reported that a scientific DR/SR qualified clock runs faster when
placed on top of a mountain (shouldn't it run slower if it's in a
location that moving faster, or is intergalactic time really that much
faster because it's the furthest away from gravity and otherwise
having the least surrounding protection from cosmic energy).

Of course our galaxy is supposedly moving at near c with respect to
the most distant galaxies, and so what gives with that affecting our
precious GR/SR certified clocks?

In other words; How much faster is IG time? (say if resting at 1e9 ly
from the nearest galaxy)

How about considering the influence of cosmic and solar radiation (aka
quantum energy) as forcing the local nuclear radioactive rate of
decay, as being the case?

Some of the more impressive CMEs are not exactly short-term events,
instead represent a great deal of initial X-rays and even a little
gamma plus several hours and even 10+ days worth of excessive protons
from start to finish that interacts with Earth, along with solar
magnetic related forces that seem to interact with radioactive decay.

http://projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discovery-strange-emissions-by-sun-are-suddenly-mutating-matter/
Something impossible has happened. Yet the “impossible” has been
proven to be true. Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that
the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a
bedrock of science—is no longer a constant.

And there's lots more fun and scary stuff to read unless your closed
mindset would only self-destruct.

~ BG

[palsing]

On Oct 12, 11:35 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:11 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 8:58 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You're not helping with this topic, but then what else should we
> > > expect.
>
> > I've responded to you before, but you insist on ignoring Good Science,
> > and you don't really want the help. Instead, you cling desperately to
> > wild speculation, most of which is just impossible.
>
> > "It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking
> > too much."
> > - Yogi Berra
>
> > \Paul A
>
> This topic of "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?" is not about
> being another brown-nosed clown or parrot of your mainstream status
> quo.  If it were, what would be the point?

Well, there you go; there is no point to this entire discussion.

> Astrophysics is changing its tune and its tap-dance almost every time
> any new and improved space telescope or even terrestrial based
> astronomy gets a better look-see or enhanced instrument readings.

Not at all true. There are new discoveries, sure, but there is no new
physics, only refinements of observations and modification of existing
physics.

<snip all the relativity chatter because, after all, the topic is "Why
can’t our solar system escape Sirius?" >

>  http://projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discov...
>  Something impossible has happened. Yet the “impossible” has been
> proven to be true. Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that
> the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a
> bedrock of science—is no longer a constant.

Undoubtedly this is a case where all the facts are not in yet, and the
truth will reveal itself in its own time. I was in college when
quasars were discovered; you should go back and look at the stuff
being written at that time, there were many claims that "new" physics
needed to be developed to explain the weird and bizarre behavior of
these completely inexplicable objects... and some of the new theories
being tossed around then were nearly as hare-brained as are most of
yours... I'm sure it will turn out to be nothing really new, physics-
wise, but rather will turn out to be yet another modification to the
"how the sun works" model, which is constantly being updated anyhow.
It is to be expected.

> And there's lots more fun and scary stuff to read unless your closed
> mindset would only self-destruct.

At any time period in history that you care to choose you will find
such literature, and this has always been the case. After the passage
of a little time a vast majority of them simply fade away, as more and
more observations fill in the blanks and new, more reasonable theories
prevail. I ALWAYS read such stuff with a jaundiced eye... been there,
done that, lots of times in my past. Business as usual.

\Paul A

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 12, 1:36 pm, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 11:35 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:11 am, palsing <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 12, 8:58 am, Brad Guth <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > You're not helping with this topic, but then what else should we
> > > > expect.
>
> > > I've responded to you before, but you insist on ignoring Good Science,
> > > and you don't really want the help. Instead, you cling desperately to
> > > wild speculation, most of which is just impossible.
>
> > > "It was impossible to get a conversation going, everybody was talking
> > > too much."
> > > - Yogi Berra
>
> > > \Paul A
>
> > This topic of "Why can’t our solar system escape Sirius?" is not about
> > being another brown-nosed clown or parrot of your mainstream status
> > quo.  If it were, what would be the point?
>
> Well, there you go; there is no point to this entire discussion.
>
> > Astrophysics is changing its tune and its tap-dance almost every time
> > any new and improved space telescope or even terrestrial based
> > astronomy gets a better look-see or enhanced instrument readings.
>
> Not at all true. There are new discoveries, sure, but there is no new
> physics, only refinements of observations and modification of existing
> physics.
>
> <snip all the relativity chatter because, after all, the topic is "Why
> can’t our solar system escape Sirius?" >
>
> >  http://projectworldawareness.com/2010/10/terrifying-scientific-discov...
> >  Something impossible has happened. Yet the “impossible” has been
> > proven to be true. Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that
> > the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a
> > bedrock of science—is no longer a constant.
>
> Undoubtedly this is a case where all the facts are not in yet, and the
> truth will reveal itself in its own time. I was in college when
> quasars were discovered; you should go back and look at the stuff
> being written at that time, there were many claims that "new" physics
> needed to be developed to explain the weird and bizarre behavior of
> these completely inexplicable objects... and some of the new theories
> being tossed around then were nearly as hare-brained as are most of
> yours... I'm sure it will turn out to be nothing really new, physics-
> wise, but rather will turn out to be yet another modification to the
> "how the sun works" model, which is constantly being updated anyhow.
> It is to be expected.
>
> > And there's lots more fun and scary stuff to read unless your closed
> > mindset would only self-destruct.
>
> At any time period in history that you care to choose you will find
> such literature, and this has always been the case. After the passage
> of a little time a vast majority of them simply fade away, as more and
> more observations fill in the blanks and new, more reasonable theories
> prevail. I ALWAYS read such stuff with a jaundiced eye... been there,
> done that, lots of times in my past. Business as usual.
>
> \Paul A

So, where exactly are you running these complex multi-body simulations
of orbital mechanics that'll get us way back in time, or take us
forward?

Can we see any of those simulation results that helps to prove your
argument?

Can we adjust anything and run off a few of our own simulations?

~ BG