Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Other than terrestrial water and tidal flex heating

Saul Levy · Guest

No, BradBoi, you are perfectly correct in calling yourself the VILLAGE
IDIOT! lmfjao!

Saul Levy

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:22:44 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn>t
need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
only keep telling us that we>re continually dead wrong about
everything.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth[/quote]

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<e793fa06-f446-46a2-b4cb-111295ed77ab@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 4:04 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
1e042a5b-e956-41a2-8125-7a599204a...@u36g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Supposedly you>re so much smarter than all of us village idiots
combined. Go fish, and show us your all-inclusive catch of the
supercomputer simulated day that somehow excludes tidal radius and
thus eliminates any measurable degree of tidal flexing.

You haven>t even defined what tidal radius means, and the one definition
I>ve seen gives a meaningless result.

I>ll work on it, and report back. Don>t hold your breath.
[/quote]
You>ve been going on about the tidal radiuses of stars and planets for
quite some time now without ever having a solid definition of the term.
Boy, that>s encouraging. And now you tell me not to expect a definition
any time soon. It begs the question of whether you know what you>re
talking about.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<6f8a9701-e4d4-40f7-b17d-aa622c6c9f3a@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 4:03 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
8cbb61e0-5edb-4742-8dc6-9ca9986e8...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
otherwise pick another fight.

Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
and the Sun being in orbit about one another?

Perhaps we>re more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
manage to orbit Sirius.
[/quote]
Perhaps you could look up the relative motions of all the nearby stars
and then try to see who>s orbiting whom. Without that, your idea is
horsefeathers.

[quote]And you have some other nearby star to suggest? (didn>t think so)
[/quote]
Suggest for what?

[quote]Are you also going to banish or exclude the fact that the nearby
Sirius star/solar system used to be worth 7+ solar masses before
Sirius B went red giant and turned itself into that little white
dwarf?
[/quote]
That has pretty much nothing to do with whether the sun is in orbit
around Sirius.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<577aa1b4-eb6b-405a-9188-0bd3fd533c46@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 4:02 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
2bbcb265-0cf9-4fd3-b0de-7f6b10b3b...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:32 am, Timberwoof
timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
In article
7c4646e4-7cad-4265-99e4-e0bdecfad...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:22 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f6d32abc-5c25-4054-a0ae-1fd1e4c5c4d7@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
m...
| On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > So, this definition is wrong?
| > Tidal Radius is :
| > "The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which
| > its
| > gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"
|
| I>ll buy that one as will, but you>re leaving out the orbital
| velocity
| factor of that planet.
|
| Cut that orbital velocity down to 1%, and how much greater is the
| tidal radius?
|
| Now give that slower moving planet a substantial elliptical orbit
| to
| start off with (aka Pluto or perhaps Sedna), and now reconsider
| the
| new and improved tidal radius.
|
| btw, unlike yourself, I didn>t cut and paste my definition of
| tidal
| radius.

Coating a definition in verbose bullshit, only indicates a tendency
to
use
verbose bullshit.

At least I>m being honest. How about yourself?

Just give your definition of "tidal radius" without bullshit.

It has something to do with gravity, mass and velocity as interacting
with other gravity, mass and velocity, each coexisting within a fully
interactive 3D environment. How>s that?

It completely sucks, that>s how that is. And you probably knew as you
wrote it that it>s about as useless a definition as you>ve ever brought
up.

Then put in your own words, or rather cut and paste from the works of
others without giving credit so that it looks as though you>re real
smart.
[/quote]
No, because I have no idea what you>re talking about when you write
"tidal radius". It>s your term; I want you to define it. If you can>t
explain it, then you probably don>t understand it. I sure as hell don>t
know what you>re talking about; why do you want me to define it for you?

[quote]Isn>t gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?

You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
works.

There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn>t
need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
only keep telling us that we>re continually dead wrong about
everything.

If you don>t know Newton>s equations and how to apply them, then you>re
in a pretty damn sorry state to be stating "facts" about stellar orbits.

Most of whatever I>d claim to know (as you>d insist), would be from
looking it up in some book or via the internet. I do not know such
equations from heart, although I could pretend that I do, and then I>d
be just like most everyone else (including yourself), a born-again
liar.
[/quote]
I don>t care if you have to look them up. Life is an open-book test. But
you have to know that they exist and how to use them and how they work.

FWIW, the general equation for gravitational attraction is
f = G M1 M2 / r^2

where f is the force of attraction between the two masses M1 and M2 and
r is the distance between them. G is a constant that makes the answer
come out right; its value depends on what units you>re using for f, M1,
M2, and r. What this means is that when something gets twice as far
away, the attraction is a quarter of what it was before. Ten times as
far, it>s a hundred times weaker. So it is sort of a forever and forever
thing, but it diminishes quite rapidly with distance.

[quote]Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
system wasn>t attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?

Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
known, for they>ve been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
Then instead of bleating about this, you>d have the numbers for how
much
tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.

All of that data and of those fully interactive 3D simulations of
orbital mechanics are bought and paid for as is, and often as having
been paid for multiple times by way of our hard earned public loot.
Why do you suppose that kind of public funded science isn>t being
mainstream touted and otherwise shared?

Beats me, Brad, and it has nothing to do with this. It only serves as
yet another handy excuse for you to go yapping about yet another wackop
conspiracy theory.

You folks do like to banish or exclude whatever rocks your mainstream
boat.
[/quote]
I couldn>t care less if you came up with some eye-candy animation that
shows whatever you want it to show. Since you clearly don>t understand
the math behind what>s gong on, any animation you come up with is
meaningless. So your access to supercomputers really doesn>t matter.

[quote]The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
years,

How did you calculate that?

Half of 100 billion years (the supposed outermost light year diameter
of our universe) is roughly 50 billion years. I seldom make mistakes
when dividing by 2.

Which begs the question, what does "tidal radius" mean?

It means whatever you>d care to cut and paste, so that it>ll make you
look extra smart and myself look exactly like the village idiot.
[/quote]
You>re making yourself look like the village idiot by not defining a
term you>ve been using for a long time as though it meant something.

[quote]I
guess the same question goes for "tidal flex", because you obviously
do not agree one iota with anything I>ve tried to convey about our
global warming that>s getting some of its energy via the lunar tidal
flexing of our 98.5% fluid Earth.
[/quote]
That>s a different matter entirely. Those effects are well-defined and
can be calculated. I even told you how.

[quote]It seems as though you want to exclude the use of anything involving
the word tidal.
[/quote]
No, I just want you to define your terms and come up with real numbers
to back up your claims, not this adjectave-laden foofoo laadedaa
feel-good verbal description thing you>ve got going. That>s not science,
that>s third-rate home movie scriptwriting.

[quote]Is the traditional meaning of "tidal" having something to do with the
oceans coming and going or of the rise and fall of our oceans?
[/quote]
That would be a sensible definition.

[quote]and that>s supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that>s somewhat rogue due to
its
escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB
universe,
is clearly outside of the core tidal radius

What>s a core tidal radius?

Just another way of suggesting whatever is sticking within our
universe is likely interrelated to the central group density that one
might as well consider as core worthy. Say of whatever fits within
the first 0.1%r could easily be considered as representing the most
combined stellar mass and black hole populated core, as our most
worthy central realm of our otherwise vast universe that>s supposedly
still expanding itself away from the most recent BB.

You>ve still not come up with a meaningful definition of tidal radius. I
think you don>t know. I think it>s some cool-sounding term you came up
with or read somewhere, which has no specific meaning for you that can
be pinned down, which since it doesn>t actually mean anything, you can
just stick it into a sentence about stars and planets and whatnot and
hope someone will think you know what you>re talking about.

There>s a nifty internet feature that even works within newsgroups,
called "Search" or "Search For". Perhaps you should try it out. Pick
whatever suits your kind of mainstream notions.
[/quote]
I>d rather you define your own terms. I will not define them for you and
then have you whine about me having come up with the wrong definition.

[quote]that>s keeping most of our
universe glued together.

Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
tidal elliptic

What>s a tidal elliptic?

A BG modified version of the traditional circular version of a fixed
velocity tidal radius, because the velocity of the elliptic tends to
vary so greatly.

More meaningless crap that can>t be used for anything.

Speak for yourself. Am I supposed to be doing this for a Nobel?
[/quote]
No, but if you want to pretend to be thinking about science, then you
should at least attempt some scientific rigor.

[quote]is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
planets and proto-moons do exist.

Examples, please.

The proto-planetoid or potential proto-moon Sedna is within a tidal
elliptic trek.

In other words, no recent examples.

Sol is within a tidal elliptic radius,

More bullshit. You started with "tidal radius or tidal elliptic" and now
you have elliptic radius. Well, you have all three combinations of the
words.

I like to mix it up.
[/quote]
Oh, come on! That>s only acceptable if your words don>t actually mean
anything.

[quote]Sorry if I>ve exceeded your capacity of
deductively interpreting the intent of whatever I>m trying to say.
Thank your lucky stars it>s not dyslexic encrypted.
[/quote]
Egads, now I>m supposed to figure out on my own what you think you mean
because you>re incapable of describing it with any sort of clarity.

[quote]as a 110,000 year elliptical
trek that>s currently headed us back towards the Sirius star/solar
system.

Toward or around?

Towards, possibly around, I don>t know enough to say either way.
Don>t suppose you>d care to help?
[/quote]
No. You should do your own homework. It>s a waste of time. A lot of
people much more clever than either of us have been looking at the
relative movements of all the nearby stars to see where they are going.
If there had been any hint that the sun was orbiting Sirius, we>d know
about it. (The same goes for all your other wacky ideas.)

[quote]How close will our solar system eventually get to the Sirius star/
solar system ????

You tell me. you>re the one claiming that Sirius and the Sun are in
orbit about one another. Surely you have the data to back up that claim
and the calculations to give more insight. But since you don>t, and it>s
all made-up bullshit, I>ll tell you: not very close.

You used the words "not very close". To me that "not very" could
suggest at least 0.86 light year, or perhaps closer than 0.086 ly.
[/quote]
Whine, whine, whine. Now you see why so many scientists and other people
smarter than you insist on using numbers rather than just adjectives and
adverbs as you have been so fond of doing.

[quote]See, you said "eventually" which could be next week or next year. You
have no clue about the relative speeds of the stars involved or the time
scales that those speeds imply.

Well, aren>t we having another bad newsgroup day, or what. You want
exact placements, as well as an exact day, hour and second, as well as
exact matter of fact upon everything else (especially of using just
the right words), or you want nothing at all.
[/quote]
Basically, yes.

[quote]Here I>d thought you were the extra smart one. Sorry, my mistake.

Next time I offer this topic I>ll have to do it in LeapFrog pop-up
format.
[/quote]
That>s about your speed.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Saul Levy · Guest

Is it true, BradBoi, that you wouldn>t know an equation if it bit you
on the ass? lmfjao!

Without equations it>s very hard to program a supercomputer. You
don>t know how even if we gave you the equations.

Saul Levy

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:17:21 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]You used the words "not very close". To me that "not very" could
suggest at least 0.86 light year, or perhaps closer than 0.086 ly.

See, you said "eventually" which could be next week or next year. You
have no clue about the relative speeds of the stars involved or the time
scales that those speeds imply.

Well, aren>t we having another bad newsgroup day, or what. You want
exact placements, as well as an exact day, hour and second, as well as
exact matter of fact upon everything else (especially of using just
the right words), or you want nothing at all.

Here I>d thought you were the extra smart one. Sorry, my mistake.

Next time I offer this topic I>ll have to do it in LeapFrog pop-up
format.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth[/quote]

Saul Levy · Guest

The correct term is ELLIPTICAL ORBIT, BradBoi! lmfjao!

Of course Pluto has an elliptical orbit.

There are an INFINITY of elliptical orbits.

Now you>re changing your tune to NEVER QUITE MANAGE TO ORBIT SIRIUS?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You stated MANY TIMES we WERE IN ORBIT AROUND SIRIUS. You gave a
guess at the orbital period, didn>t you? Are we, or aren>t we? Make
up your cotton-pickin' mind!

Saul Levy

On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:28:09 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Perhaps we>re more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
manage to orbit Sirius.

And you have some other nearby star to suggest? (didn>t think so)

Are you also going to banish or exclude the fact that the nearby
Sirius star/solar system used to be worth 7+ solar masses before
Sirius B went red giant and turned itself into that little white
dwarf?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth[/quote]

don findlay · Guest

[quote]When exactly was our seasonal tilt established?

The present one syn-to-post Mesozoic. Might still be happening
(adjusting). But there are indications of earlier tilt

But apparently there>s no specific date to any given year. Figures,
doesn>t it.
[/quote]
Sure, no specific date. Only if you>re a born again
catastrophist, ...would you be interested in one either.

[quote]
You do realize that of us mostly naked and obviously uneducated
heathens, plus most other life upon this planet, essentially didn>t
have to seasonally migrate prior to 13,000 BP.
[/quote]
Woad. ... If you saw Kiera Knightley in King Arthur running about in
the snow dressed only in a few woad armbands for thermal protection
you>d realise there was no need for anybody to migrate anywhere 13,000
years ago, but if she chose to take a holiday, down the French
Riviera, say, ..then I think the whole population would have migrated
in the same direction.

[quote]At least there are no
apparent biological remains or any form of intelligent formulated
records telling us otherwise.
[/quote]
I would wait till we hear from Ed on this one, ..except I think he>s
working in the Carboniferous.

[quote]I agree that plate tectonics can>t account for all of Earth>s
mountains, much less of being limited as to those foldie mountains.

So, you don>t believe in the physics or geophysical morph of any
impact and subsequent antipode process of ever having created their
fair share of mountains or much less having broken up the crust of
Earth, or having given us a whole lot more of a seasonal tilt to work
with,
[/quote]
Not at all. I think the Earth was clobbered bigTime . But it>s not
the process known as orogenesis, which is said to be the crumpling of
the crust to throw up mountains - the making of foldies. Certainly big
impacts could break the crust. I don>t have the numbers, but I feel
it in my water. If a meteorite less than a kilometer big can knock a
hole in the Earth from here to about 70km to the east, the
Astronomical Observatory said here of a near miss recently, then by my
reckoning that>s good for a crack in the crust anywhere in the world.
Where it might go to after that is anybody>s guess. Or if the
impactor was tens of kilometres, ..then what? (And from what
direction?)

All I>m saying is that the process of making mountains (orogenesis) is
nothing to do with crumpling of the crust, ..but to do with erosion.of
'uplited' areas - 'uplift' being essentially a shorthand way of
talking about differences in curvature of the planet surface. A round
surface is flat if it>s all even, but a locally more curved bit in a
changed gravity field is not.

[quote]but instead just favoring the gradual erosion process that can>t
explain as to why in places there>s so little mountain eroding taking
place as of relatively lately (say for the past few hundred million
years),
[/quote]
Flat is flat. No erosion. Maybe a bit of wind drilling a hole here
and there, but to get serious erosion you need the water level
falling. Without that, erosion can stop indefinitely. "Surface of
zero erosion potential. It can be the top of Mount Everest - till the
water level falls.

[quote]and also can>t explain away the absolutely horrific scope of
our Selene/moon south pole crater,
[/quote]
A real Burster, ..eh? And the ones on the backside. Not pimples.

[quote]and then obviously you also can
seem to explain away our global warming trend that has been ongoing
ever since the very last ice-age this planet w/moon is ever going to
see.

You do realize that I>m not another one of those all-or-nothing kind
of guys, don>t you?

I never once said or having implied that each and every mountain on
Earth was via the impact/antipode process, but that>s clearly the way
your all-or-nothing mindset has been thinking.
[/quote]
Well, there are different kinds of mountains . Volcanoes for a
start. And finish. Other than that I can only think of the foldie
ones, which are erosional. Sure you get folds due to gravitational
adjustment - just like erosion and avalanches are 'gravitational
adjustment' - but that>s an entirely different thing from what Plate
Tectonicists (in their ignorance) are trying to get you to believe.
Those kinds of avalanches and the sort that crumple the crust when it
falls 'gravitationally', are much the same, in a sense.

[quote]
- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth[/quote]

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 24, 9:26 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
[quote]In article
e793fa06-f446-46a2-b4cb-111295ed7...@a3g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:04 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
1e042a5b-e956-41a2-8125-7a599204a...@u36g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Supposedly you>re so much smarter than all of us village idiots
combined. Go fish, and show us your all-inclusive catch of the
supercomputer simulated day that somehow excludes tidal radius and
thus eliminates any measurable degree of tidal flexing.

You haven>t even defined what tidal radius means, and the one definition
I>ve seen gives a meaningless result.

I>ll work on it, and report back. Don>t hold your breath.

You>ve been going on about the tidal radiuses of stars and planets for
quite some time now without ever having a solid definition of the term.
Boy, that>s encouraging. And now you tell me not to expect a definition
any time soon. It begs the question of whether you know what you>re
talking about.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
[/quote]

Go right ahead and use the internet or published versions of "tidal
radius" and "tidal flex", as for the moment I>ll accept those versions
because I have no intentions of modifying their interpretations as
based upon the regular laws of physics.

As to the "tidal elliptic" or tidal elliptic radius", that>s going to
have to be an entirely new one that apparently only a dyslexic
village idiot like myself can manage to create, because there are
variables of at least a trinary consideration taking place. In the
case of Sedna, there’s likely a minimum of 5 interactive gravity
factors and the 3D interactive motions of each of those to deal with.
With deductive reasoning, I’d think of using at least 4 gravity and
orbital factors that initiated our tidal elliptic radius with the
Sirius star/solar system, that which had us in a relatively short
elliptic period towards the beginning, of perhaps as little as 25,000
years.

A supercomputer simulator of such complex orbital dynamics capability
is no longer a problem, as well as the nearby stellar motions are not
unknown to us. Putting all of this into a few simulations, allowing
for certain give and take variables, and lo and behold we should have
that 3D interactive look-see at the simulation results as going back
or forward in time.

If my deductive SWAG is half right, our solar system trek will get us
at least to within .86 light year of the Sirius star/solar system.
However, I see no good reason why we wouldn’t have gotten to within
0.086 ly, or 100 fold closer than we are right now. Of going way
further back in time, this elliptic tidal radius might have placed our
wussy little solar system to within as tight as getting us a thousand
fold closer (0.0086 ly), and possibly even as to having orbited the 7+
combined solar mass of Sirius in a way that might have had our Sol as
representing Sirius C or D.

If you can help get this one into any of our public supercomputers
would be a good thing for both of us, plus credits for anyone else
that can mage to contribute.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

BradGuth · Guest

On Jul 24, 9:27 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
[quote]In article
6f8a9701-e4d4-40f7-b17d-aa622c6c9...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:03 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
8cbb61e0-5edb-4742-8dc6-9ca9986e8...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
otherwise pick another fight.

Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
and the Sun being in orbit about one another?

Perhaps we>re more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
manage to orbit Sirius.

Perhaps you could look up the relative motions of all the nearby stars
and then try to see who>s orbiting whom. Without that, your idea is
horsefeathers.
[/quote]
Many others have already established those "horsefeathers" on our
behalf. The problem is that whenever such horsefeathers involve
Sirius it seems their lights go out, and we>re left in the dark.
Wonder why that is?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

[quote]
And you have some other nearby star to suggest? (didn>t think so)

Suggest for what?

Are you also going to banish or exclude the fact that the nearby
Sirius star/solar system used to be worth 7+ solar masses before
Sirius B went red giant and turned itself into that little white
dwarf?

That has pretty much nothing to do with whether the sun is in orbit
around Sirius.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don>t blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.[/quote]

BradGuth · Guest

Why do you continually exclude or banish the observed science and
often measured facts of orbital dynamics as related to stellar
motions?

Are you suggesting that comets and asteroids don>t really exist as
having such long elliptical treks?

Are you suggesting it only takes the random happenstance motions of
two bodies of gravity in order to establish and sustain an elliptical
path?

Are you suggesting that such elliptical path bodies actually maintain
a constant velocity?

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

On Jul 24, 9:43 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
wrote:
[quote]In article
577aa1b4-eb6b-405a-9188-0bd3fd533...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:02 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
2bbcb265-0cf9-4fd3-b0de-7f6b10b3b...@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 11:32 am, Timberwoof
timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
In article
7c4646e4-7cad-4265-99e4-e0bdecfad...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:22 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:f6d32abc-5c25-4054-a0ae-1fd1e4c5c4d7@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.co
m...
| On Jul 22, 11:16 pm, "Sunny" <wombatlo...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > So, this definition is wrong?
| > Tidal Radius is :
| > "The distance from the centre of a planet to the point at which
| > its
| > gravitational pull equals that of the Sun"
|
| I>ll buy that one as will, but you>re leaving out the orbital
| velocity
| factor of that planet.
|
| Cut that orbital velocity down to 1%, and how much greater is the
| tidal radius?
|
| Now give that slower moving planet a substantial elliptical orbit
| to
| start off with (aka Pluto or perhaps Sedna), and now reconsider
| the
| new and improved tidal radius.
|
| btw, unlike yourself, I didn>t cut and paste my definition of
| tidal
| radius.

Coating a definition in verbose bullshit, only indicates a tendency
to
use
verbose bullshit.

At least I>m being honest. How about yourself?

Just give your definition of "tidal radius" without bullshit.

It has something to do with gravity, mass and velocity as interacting
with other gravity, mass and velocity, each coexisting within a fully
interactive 3D environment. How>s that?

It completely sucks, that>s how that is. And you probably knew as you
wrote it that it>s about as useless a definition as you>ve ever brought
up.

Then put in your own words, or rather cut and paste from the works of
others without giving credit so that it looks as though you>re real
smart.

No, because I have no idea what you>re talking about when you write
"tidal radius". It>s your term; I want you to define it. If you can>t
explain it, then you probably don>t understand it. I sure as hell don>t
know what you>re talking about; why do you want me to define it for you?

Isn>t gravity a thing of going and going, as in forever and ever?

You could present the equations from Newton which describe how this
works.

There are lots of things I should do, but perhaps then we wouldn>t
need smarter folks like yourself, would we, especially of those that
only keep telling us that we>re continually dead wrong about
everything.

If you don>t know Newton>s equations and how to apply them, then you>re
in a pretty damn sorry state to be stating "facts" about stellar orbits.

Most of whatever I>d claim to know (as you>d insist), would be from
looking it up in some book or via the internet. I do not know such
equations from heart, although I could pretend that I do, and then I>d
be just like most everyone else (including yourself), a born-again
liar.

I don>t care if you have to look them up. Life is an open-book test. But
you have to know that they exist and how to use them and how they work.

FWIW, the general equation for gravitational attraction is
f = G M1 M2 / r^2

where f is the force of attraction between the two masses M1 and M2 and
r is the distance between them. G is a constant that makes the answer
come out right; its value depends on what units you>re using for f, M1,
M2, and r. What this means is that when something gets twice as far
away, the attraction is a quarter of what it was before. Ten times as
far, it>s a hundred times weaker. So it is sort of a forever and forever
thing, but it diminishes quite rapidly with distance.

Are you saying that a 7+ solar mass of the original Sirius star/solar
system wasn>t attracting in a tidal radius kind of way?

Maybe you could define what "tidal radius" means. Maybe you could get
the equations for calculating tidal forces, and apply them to the sun
for the ten nearest stars. (Their distances and masses are fairly well
known, for they>ve been calculated by the astronomical establishment.)
Then instead of bleating about this, you>d have the numbers for how
much
tidal force these stars really exert on the sun.

All of that data and of those fully interactive 3D simulations of
orbital mechanics are bought and paid for as is, and often as having
been paid for multiple times by way of our hard earned public loot.
Why do you suppose that kind of public funded science isn>t being
mainstream touted and otherwise shared?

Beats me, Brad, and it has nothing to do with this. It only serves as
yet another handy excuse for you to go yapping about yet another wackop
conspiracy theory.

You folks do like to banish or exclude whatever rocks your mainstream
boat.

I couldn>t care less if you came up with some eye-candy animation that
shows whatever you want it to show. Since you clearly don>t understand
the math behind what>s gong on, any animation you come up with is
meaningless. So your access to supercomputers really doesn>t matter.

The current tidal radius of this universe is roughly 50 billion light
years,

How did you calculate that?

Half of 100 billion years (the supposed outermost light year diameter
of our universe) is roughly 50 billion years. I seldom make mistakes
when dividing by 2.

Which begs the question, what does "tidal radius" mean?

It means whatever you>d care to cut and paste, so that it>ll make you
look extra smart and myself look exactly like the village idiot.

You>re making yourself look like the village idiot by not defining a
term you>ve been using for a long time as though it meant something.

I
guess the same question goes for "tidal flex", because you obviously
do not agree one iota with anything I>ve tried to convey about our
global warming that>s getting some of its energy via the lunar tidal
flexing of our 98.5% fluid Earth.

That>s a different matter entirely. Those effects are well-defined and
can be calculated. I even told you how.

It seems as though you want to exclude the use of anything involving
the word tidal.

No, I just want you to define your terms and come up with real numbers
to back up your claims, not this adjectave-laden foofoo laadedaa
feel-good verbal description thing you>ve got going. That>s not science,
that>s third-rate home movie scriptwriting.

Is the traditional meaning of "tidal" having something to do with the
oceans coming and going or of the rise and fall of our oceans?

That would be a sensible definition.

and that>s supposedly expanding ever faster as time allows.
Obviously the furthest kinds of stuff that>s somewhat rogue due to
its
escaping velocity at the far edge or event horizon of our BB
universe,
is clearly outside of the core tidal radius

What>s a core tidal radius?

Just another way of suggesting whatever is sticking within our
universe is likely interrelated to the central group density that one
might as well consider as core worthy. Say of whatever fits within
the first 0.1%r could easily be considered as representing the most
combined stellar mass and black hole populated core, as our most
worthy central realm of our otherwise vast universe that>s supposedly
still expanding itself away from the most recent BB.

You>ve still not come up with a meaningful definition of tidal radius.. I
think you don>t know. I think it>s some cool-sounding term you came up
with or read somewhere, which has no specific meaning for you that can
be pinned down, which since it doesn>t actually mean anything, you can
just stick it into a sentence about stars and planets and whatnot and
hope someone will think you know what you>re talking about.

There>s a nifty internet feature that even works within newsgroups,
called "Search" or "Search For". Perhaps you should try it out. Pick
whatever suits your kind of mainstream notions.

I>d rather you define your own terms. I will not define them for you and
then have you whine about me having come up with the wrong definition.

that>s keeping most of our
universe glued together.

Of what if anything is going to hang tight into a tidal radius or
tidal elliptic

What>s a tidal elliptic?

A BG modified version of the traditional circular version of a fixed
velocity tidal radius, because the velocity of the elliptic tends to
vary so greatly.

More meaningless crap that can>t be used for anything.

Speak for yourself. Am I supposed to be doing this for a Nobel?

No, but if you want to pretend to be thinking about science, then you
should at least attempt some scientific rigor.

is at best complex, at worse next to impossible but
entirely doable because such long orbital treks of stellar, proto-
planets and proto-moons do exist.

Examples,

...

read more »[/quote]

Saul Levy · Guest

I saw King Arthur last night, don. She>d look nice in a bikini too!
lmao!

I>d be happy to keep her warm. lmao!

Saul Levy

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:01:50 -0700 (PDT), don findlay
<don@tower.net.au> wrote:

[quote]Woad. ... If you saw Kiera Knightley in King Arthur running about in
the snow dressed only in a few woad armbands for thermal protection
you>d realise there was no need for anybody to migrate anywhere 13,000
years ago, but if she chose to take a holiday, down the French
Riviera, say, ..then I think the whole population would have migrated
in the same direction.[/quote]

Saul Levy · Guest

Still making things up I see, BradBoi! lmfjao!

The Sun ISN>T in orbit around Sirius A/B. Both are in orbit around
the galactic center.

The Sun would have become Sirius B and the white dwarf Sirius C.

Now your fake orbit is down to a 25,000 year period?

BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Your radial velocity was too big by a factor of 2, yet you are
LOWERING the orbital period? Wrong direction!

If you had use of a supercomputer, you>d be a total disaster rather
than just our village idiot.

Saul Levy

On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 07:22:15 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth
<bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Go right ahead and use the internet or published versions of "tidal
radius" and "tidal flex", as for the moment I>ll accept those versions
because I have no intentions of modifying their interpretations as
based upon the regular laws of physics.

As to the "tidal elliptic" or tidal elliptic radius", that>s going to
have to be an entirely new one that apparently only a dyslexic
village idiot like myself can manage to create, because there are
variables of at least a trinary consideration taking place. In the
case of Sedna, there’s likely a minimum of 5 interactive gravity
factors and the 3D interactive motions of each of those to deal with.
With deductive reasoning, I’d think of using at least 4 gravity and
orbital factors that initiated our tidal elliptic radius with the
Sirius star/solar system, that which had us in a relatively short
elliptic period towards the beginning, of perhaps as little as 25,000
years.

A supercomputer simulator of such complex orbital dynamics capability
is no longer a problem, as well as the nearby stellar motions are not
unknown to us. Putting all of this into a few simulations, allowing
for certain give and take variables, and lo and behold we should have
that 3D interactive look-see at the simulation results as going back
or forward in time.

If my deductive SWAG is half right, our solar system trek will get us
at least to within .86 light year of the Sirius star/solar system.
However, I see no good reason why we wouldn’t have gotten to within
0.086 ly, or 100 fold closer than we are right now. Of going way
further back in time, this elliptic tidal radius might have placed our
wussy little solar system to within as tight as getting us a thousand
fold closer (0.0086 ly), and possibly even as to having orbited the 7+
combined solar mass of Sirius in a way that might have had our Sol as
representing Sirius C or D.

If you can help get this one into any of our public supercomputers
would be a good thing for both of us, plus credits for anyone else
that can mage to contribute.

- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth[/quote]

G=EMC^2 Glazier · Guest

Alain When I think of tidal flex heating my mind jumps to Jupiter four
close orbit Moons. It fits bert

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<cef33054-7b07-467a-8b90-73a5351ba6d8@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]Why do you continually exclude or banish the observed science and
often measured facts of orbital dynamics as related to stellar
motions?
[/quote]
What observed "science"? You haven>t presented any.

[quote]Are you suggesting that comets and asteroids don>t really exist as
having such long elliptical treks?
[/quote]
No. That>s a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.

[quote]Are you suggesting it only takes the random happenstance motions of
two bodies of gravity in order to establish and sustain an elliptical
path?
[/quote]
No. That>s a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.

[quote]Are you suggesting that such elliptical path bodies actually maintain
a constant velocity?
[/quote]
No. That>s a ridiculous assertion not based in anything I wrote.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what¹s accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.

Timberwoof · Guest

In article
<23e4f271-bdad-4a46-8418-14a5a7e84f33@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
BradGuth <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote:

[quote]On Jul 24, 9:27 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
6f8a9701-e4d4-40f7-b17d-aa622c6c9...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 24, 4:03 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com
wrote:
In article
8cbb61e0-5edb-4742-8dc6-9ca9986e8...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
I have no plans of changing the way I treat those that continually go
out of their pathetic way, just to cause trauma and grief and to
otherwise pick another fight.

Then how come you keep inventing bullshit like the latest about Sirius
and the Sun being in orbit about one another?

Perhaps we>re more comet/asteroid elliptical like, and never quite
manage to orbit Sirius.

Perhaps you could look up the relative motions of all the nearby stars
and then try to see who>s orbiting whom. Without that, your idea is
horsefeathers.

Many others have already established those "horsefeathers" on our
behalf. The problem is that whenever such horsefeathers involve
Sirius it seems their lights go out, and we>re left in the dark.
Wonder why that is?
[/quote]
Mostly because you invent all kinds of fanciful fairy-takes about that
star>s relation to ours which have no basis in fact.

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Official naysayer of the DARPA kind, who knows only of what¹s accepted by
the Old Testament of the Zionist/Nazi New World Order
which refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Astrology - Amateur Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next
Page 7 of 11