 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / July 2008Why can't there be other clusters, larger than superclusters?
Let us assume that there are other clusters, larger than superclusters, and that everything we have observed of the universe is within such a cluster. Then couldn't the "local expansion" of our cluster, merely be due to interaction with other such clusters? In article <8f3f99ee-30ba-4337-9e83-e04dbdad318b@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, > Let us assume that there are other clusters, larger than > superclusters, and that everything we have observed of the universe is > within such a cluster. No, let us make actual observations of galaxies to see what the large-scale structure of the universe really is. > Then couldn't the "local expansion" of our cluster, merely be due to > interaction with other such clusters? What local expansion?  SignatureTimberwoof <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. Try a Google under 'Sloan Great Wall'. Recently discovered, most expansive "super-superstructure" yet known. > Try a Google under 'Sloan Great Wall'. Recently discovered, most > expansive "super-superstructure" yet known. There's still some debate over whether or not the SGW is a true "structure" because of the way some of the measurements were taken. The following is pretty cool, and readily shows the filament-forming tendency of large structures of matter (super clusters of galaxies)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2MASS_LSS_chart-NEW_Nasa.jpg Click on the image for a larger, more detailed view. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: Thank YOU for reading! P.P.S.: http://painellsworth.net The 2MASS survey ( a star count in near-infrared ) you showed makes the Milky Way look like the Sombrero galaxy, so I added it to my “ HyperBrilliants ” file: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ”. 2MASS is not just a star count, Jeff! lmao! It's a 2-micron infra-red survey of the entire sky. There are 470 million objects and 1.6 million resolved sources which are mostly galaxies. For more see: http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/ Saul Levy On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:15:51 +0000 (UTC), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >The 2MASS survey ( a star count in near-infrared ) you showed >makes the Milky Way look like the Sombrero galaxy, so I added it to >my HyperBrilliants file: JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG . Not only did I Not say 2MASS wan't an “ All Sky Survey ”, I actually mentioned the full name, see: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ”. It was the Star Count of the Milky Way that interested me, obviously. The sun in our solar system looks as dark as an arctic winter compared to “ HyperBrilliants ” ( a.k.a. black holes ). P.S. apologies if this post is a duplicate, server problems. Your reference is meaningless DRIVEL, Jeff! lmao! Where's the LINK? I corrected an error on your part that I didn't want to propagate as they usually do. There are many exterior objects found by 2MASS that are not in our galaxy. Saul Levy On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:35:21 +0200 (CEST), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >Not only did I Not say 2MASS wan't an All Sky Survey , >I actually mentioned the full name, see: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >P.S. apologies if this post is a duplicate, server problems. “ Where's the LINK ? ” .. it's here: “ JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ”. Drag it to your URL bar ( or copy and paste it ). The URL bar is at the top of your web browser, were you type in addresses. Had I wanted a clickable link, I wouldn've written it as: “ www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ” or “ http://JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG ”. O.K., sorry I didn't realize that was a link. lmao! Saul Levy On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 03:08:31 +0200 (CEST), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: > Where's the LINK ? .. it's here: > JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG . [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > www.JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG or > http://JeffRelf.F-M.FM/HyperBrilliants.JPG . Cactus Saul You being an astronomer I need this question answered. Are there more binary star systems than single star? Always had a theory that nature loves to produce in pairs even in the macro realm Thanks in advance Bert “ Our solitary sun ━ even the word ‘ solitary ’ derives from it ━ is in the minority among stars in the galaxy. A bit more than half of the hundreds of billions of stars in the Milky Way travel in pairs, nearly all of them orbiting so close that they can't be distinguished individually except by powerful telescopes. ” -- Phil Berardelli, ScienceNOW Daily News, June 19th, 2008 Jeff Thanks for that information Stars created in pairs is what I have in mind. I wonder if that hurts the formation of planets? It could make for very tricky orbits etc Bert There are some stable planetary orbits around multiple stars, BEERTbrain! Saul Levy >Jeff Thanks for that information Stars created in pairs is what I have >in mind. I wonder if that hurts the formation of planets? It could >make for very tricky orbits etc Bert Cactus Saul What mulistar system has these orbiting planets? how do you know they are stable? Find that far out thinking,and I like it. Bert I've heard papers at meetings which claim there are stable planetary orbits. So far it's all theoretical. No actual examples have been found so far. Saul Levy >Cactus Saul What mulistar system has these orbiting planets? how do you >know they are stable? Find that far out thinking,and I like it. Bert > Cactus Saul What mulistar system has these orbiting planets? how do you > know they are stable? Find that far out thinking,and I like it. Bert Don't you ever realize when your good old "Cactus Saul" buddy is treating you like worse off than used toilet paper? Is there any time when your "Cactus Saul" buddy has been honestly topic constructive and not actually wiping his Zionist/Nazi butt with your section-8 nose? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Spoken like the INSANE IDIOT that you are, BradBoi! lmfjao! I'm just playing with BEERTbrain while you are a RACIST PIG! Saul Levy >> Cactus Saul What mulistar system has these orbiting planets? how do you >> know they are stable? Find that far out thinking,and I like it. Bert [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Cactus Saul I have severed my universe very well over the years She would not go against my creation in pair theory. Nature is mystical but she is not cruel Bert > Cactus Saul I have severed my universe very well over the years She > would not go against my creation in pair theory. Nature is mystical but > she is not cruel Bert According to your Zionist/Nazi rabbi friend, Saul Levy, Earth is all there is to behold, and apparently it belongs exclusively to those white Jewish warlords that only adhere to their Old Testament mindset (same as our pretend-Atheist rabbi Saul Levy). If "In the Milky Way, half of the stars are paired", then perhaps most of everything else is of a more complex trinary or greater populated group of interstellar tidal radius relationships, that are somewhat independent of the Milky Way core of black holes. Due to galactic encounters, it seems entirely likely that at least 0.1% could have become somewhat rogue at any given time. 0.1% of the 500 billion some odd stars within our Milky way gives us 500 million stellar and associated planets along with their moons that are sort of free to move about the universe once we have interacted/ collided with another galaxy, and galaxies do in fact go bump in the night. The combined tidal radius or perhaps tidal diameter of any pair of galaxies is downright impressive. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Are you ever going to define your terms, BradBoi? lmfjao! Remember: HALF means that HALF aren't paired! Is that a little too much for your deductive logical abilities, BradBoi? lmao! Saul Levy >According to your Zionist/Nazi rabbi friend, Saul Levy, Earth is all >there is to behold, and apparently it belongs exclusively to those [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Cactus saul Stars in pairs do not always stay to gather,and if 50% are still orbiting each other that has to tell us some thing Bert > Cactus saul Stars in pairs do not always stay to gather,and if 50% are > still orbiting each other that has to tell us some thing Bert There you go again, replying to our resident Zionist/Nazi rabbi Saul Levy, almost as though he was Hitler, or perhaps merely one of his Zionist/Nazi minions in charge of kicking your butt. Their job has always been to keep continually topic/author stalking and bashing until those rad-hard NASA/Apollo cows come home, and you're biting into every bit of their ruse as though it were cotton candy. (we can tell, because it's all over your face) - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Your statement, BradBoi, IS offensive! lmfjao! I had to tell an asswipe off yesterday for making a racist statement in a chat room that I found offensive. Saul Levy >> Cactus saul Stars in pairs do not always stay to gather,and if 50% are >> still orbiting each other that has to tell us some thing Bert [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Brad There you go again posting your hate for all Jews. You cant brain wash us for we are all to old. Your parents did a job on you It is so sad. Bert > Brad There you go again posting your hate for all Jews. You cant brain > wash us for we are all to old. Your parents did a job on you It is so > sad. Bert Unlike yourself, I only hate them bad Jews (small percentage of the lot), as mostly those of the hard core Old Testament bad Zionist kind. You do realize, of the bad faith-based kind do require having their puppet government warlords, don't you? What do you call a given group or collective swarm of individuals (government, faith-based or pretend-Atheists) that do not bother to police their own kind? How about your Republican Mafia friends, that by your own personal expertise and subsequent words seem not to police their own kind. Are they otherwise good and worth keeping around because anyone of them might have some faith-based (perhaps Jewish none the less) association? What's the average faith or whatever born-again religious pretense of your local Republican Mafia? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth You're still an anti-Semitic racist pig, BradBoi! lmfjao! Saul Levy >> Brad There you go again posting your hate for all Jews. You cant brain >> wash us for we are all to old. Your parents did a job on you It is so [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I think the word “ life ” has been defined too narrowly, it's not just: “ spontaneously produced water-cooled engines ”. > I think the word ³ life ² has been defined too narrowly, > it's not just: ³ spontaneously produced water-cooled engines ². That's a novel concept! It's far better than water-cooled engines that spontaneously destruct. SignatureTimberwoof <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. Nothing could ever be acausal, so water-cooled “ engines of life ” are both spontaneously created and destroyed. True choices don't exist, just pseudo choices, like: “ Should I live faster or longer ? ”. Anything short of hibernation will shorten your life .. and even that could kill you toot sweet. Same goes for humanity as a whole. > Jeff Thanks for that information Stars created in pairs is what I have > in mind. I wonder if that hurts the formation of planets? It could > make for very tricky orbits etc Bert As long as one of the binary stars isn't in the process of going red giant, chances are that sufficiently stable planetary orbits and even life zone worthy planets with spare moons shouldn't be all that unexpected. Sirius B prior to having gone red giant would have made a darn good sun for any number of life supporting planets. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth The lack of evidence is DEAFENING, BradBoi! lmfjao! Maybe the Starship Enterprise should go over there to find out for us? BAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Too bad that Enterprise is FICTION! Saul Levy >> Jeff Thanks for that information Stars created in pairs is what I have >> in mind. I wonder if that hurts the formation of planets? It could [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I did research on that topic with Helmut Abt in the 1970s, Jeff. We found that some groups of stars are ALL multiple (binaries). Saul Levy On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:47:16 +0200 (CEST), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: > Our solitary sun > ? even the word solitary derives from it ? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > except by powerful telescopes. > -- Phil Berardelli, ScienceNOW Daily News, June 19th, 2008 Cactus Saul It would be interesting to find out how twin stars are formed. Why they can be so close to each other. I know they will throw back the accretion disk,but ??? bert They're working on that, BEERTbrain! lmao! Saul Levy >Cactus Saul It would be interesting to find out how twin stars are >formed. Why they can be so close to each other. I know they will throw >back the accretion disk,but ??? bert The cosmos was once much, Much denser than it is now, and it's getting less dense all the time. Net net, all things considered, entropy only accrues. So asking how a binary star could form is like asking: “ How could something break apart ? ”. Jeff Things move further apart when angular momentum energy is stronger than the gravitational force. Best to keep in mind when the3 Earth captured the Moon it went into an elliptic orbit that was as close as 25,000 miles Bert You are just FULL OF (IT) ANSWERS, Jeff! lmao! Saul Levy On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:54:40 +0200 (CEST), Jeff?Relf <Jeff_Relf@0.Invalid> wrote: >The cosmos was once much, Much denser than it is now, >and it's getting less dense all the time. >Net net, all things considered, entropy only accrues. > >So asking how a binary star could form is like asking: > How could something break apart ? Cactus Saul I know there are tri star systems,and have to ask you this question. Are there star systems with more stars than three? I know if Jupiter was replaced by a star as big as the Sun it would not create an orbit problem Bert The most I've heard of is SEVEN, BEERTbrain! The star is Zeta Ursa Majoris at the bend in the tail (handle) of the Big Dipper. Who told you that replacing Jupiter with one solar mass wouldn't change anything? That's just plain WRONG! All the planetary orbits would be SCREWED UP! Saul Levy >Cactus Saul I know there are tri star systems,and have to ask you this >question. Are there star systems with more stars than three? I >know if Jupiter was replaced by a star as big as the Sun it would not >create an orbit problem Bert Cactus saul my thinking is good gravity thinking. Think about it Thanks for that seven orbiting system Bert. > “ Our solitary sun > ━ even the word ‘ solitary ’ derives from it ━ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > except by powerful telescopes. ” > -- Phil Berardelli, ScienceNOW Daily News, June 19th, 2008 From a sufficient distance (say the exact opposite side of our Milky Way) and in that specific direction of View, it would seem that our sun is paired up rather nicely with the Sirius star/solar system, making this a fairly common enough trinary star system that would most likely look as though binary because Sirius B getting lost in all of those photons, whereas our sun is currently headed us back towards the Sirius star/solar system that used to represent 7+ solar masses. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth There is NO EVIDENCE that the Sun ever had a companion star, BradBoi! lmfjao! Why bring in being on the opposite side of the Milky Way? That's TOTAL WACKO BULLSHIT! Very common of you, of course! For what will NEVER be the last time: The Sun and Sirius A/B are not in orbit around each other in any way! If you know better, then what is the new period for such an orbit? You accepted a more correct radial velocity and NEVER changed that period. What happened 8.6 years ago with Sirius A/B? Why did the radial velocity change signs TWICE? You never answer, so everything you say is TOTAL BULLSHIT! Saul Levy >From a sufficient distance (say the exact opposite side of our Milky >Way) and in that specific direction of View, it would seem that our [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >- Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Cactus Saul if every thing was based on concrete evidence how much would we have to think about? lets not forget QM and the string theory. Much of the universe is hypothetical at best Go figure Bert > Cactus Saul if every thing was based on concrete evidence how much > would we have to think about? lets not forget QM and the string theory. > Much of the universe is hypothetical at best Go figure Bert Again, you insist upon replying to those Republican Mafia types, and oddly expecting anything other than lethal flack in the form of as much put-down as they can muster. It's the Cactus Saul types of pretend-Atheists (aka DARPA types) that are those in charge of you local government, energy and water, as well as most likely in charge of making all that beer you continually drink while sitting in their section-8 provided housing. What is it about their $5/gallon of fuel that you don't object to? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth I'm in charge of NOTHING, BradBoi! lmfjao! I guess you just can't understand that point. Saul Levy >It's the Cactus Saul types of pretend-Atheists (aka DARPA types) that >are those in charge of you local government, energy and water, as well >as most likely in charge of making all that beer you continually drink >while sitting in their section-8 provided housing. > > - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > “ Our solitary sun > ━ even the word ‘ solitary ’ derives from it ━ [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > except by powerful telescopes. ” > -- Phil Berardelli, ScienceNOW Daily News, June 19th, 2008 In addition to long orbital trek binaries, there’s perhaps our fair share of trinary examples. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/binary_stars.html “APOD: 2005 August 30 - Albireo: A Bright and Beautiful Double Explanation: Sometimes, even a small telescope can help unlock a hidden beauty of the heavens. Such is the case of the bright double star Albireo. Seen at even slight magnification, Albireo unfolds from a bright single point into a beautiful double star of strikingly different colors. At 380 light years distant, the two bright stars of Albireo are comparatively far from each other and take about 75,000 years to complete a single orbit. The brighter yellow star is itself a binary star system, but too close together to be resolved even with a telescope. Albireo, pictured above, is the fifth brightest star system toward the constellation of the Swan (Cygnus) and easily visible to the unaided eye.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albireo “It is not known whether the two components are orbiting around each other in a physical binary system. If they are, their orbital period is probably at least 100,000 years.” I believe our orbit of the Sirius star/solar system is currently worth 105,000 ~ 110,000 years, perhaps nowadays it getting a wee bit longer ever since the all-inclusive Sirius star/solar system lost track of 4+ solar masses.. If a 5 and 3.3 solar mass binary star system is good for 75,000 to 100,000 years per orbit, then perhaps ours at 110,000 years per orbit or per close encounter with the Sirius star/solar system isn’t so terribly unlikely. - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth Roughly HALF of all stars are multiple (binary), BEERTbrain! Some groups are ALL binaries. That means that MOST stars are multiple, not single. Saul Levy >Cactus Saul You being an astronomer I need this question answered. Are >there more binary star systems than single star? Always had a theory >that nature loves to produce in pairs even in the macro realm Thanks in >advance Bert Cactus Saul My brain told me that many moons ago. Nature loves to create in pairs. In the micro realm its the only way. Now I will throw in some thing I had in mind. All stars are created in pairs. The Sun also had a twin,and it broke away from orbit and moved further and further away. This is true of every single star we detect in this spacetime. Like Jeff pointed out stars orbiting each other look like a single star because they are so far away. Whole galaxies look like a single star when viewed from great distance. I love it when my thinking is on the money Bert There is NO EVIDENCE that all stars are in pairs at any time in their lives. Sure, in clusters, but not real binary pairs. Your theory is another crazy one, BEERTbrain! Saul Levy >Cactus Saul My brain told me that many moons ago. Nature loves to >create in pairs. In the micro realm its the only way. Now I will throw [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >single star when viewed from great distance. I love it when my thinking >is on the money Bert On 11 Jul, 03:21, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote: > No, let us make actual observations of galaxies to see what the > large-scale structure of the universe really is. How do you know that it is the large scale structure you are observing, and not just a micro cluster within a much larger structure you are incapable of observing? > On 11 Jul, 03:21, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > How do you know that it is the large scale structure you are > observing because you can look at it to see if it is big, it becomes testable, and if it is a very big thing compared to all the other things you can see, it is big. If it isn't really big, but is just an apparent thing, due to some line of sight or foreshortening illusion, eventually clues may appear to reveal it is only apparently big, or they may not, depending on improving of being able to look via equipment or theory advances... > and not just a micro cluster within a much larger structure > you are incapable of observing? ...but if you are really and truly incapable of observing it, ever, then it is not testable, then scientifically you cannot say anything about it at all. You can philosophize on the matter, but you cannot take measures that test the validity or invalidity of any particular hypothesis. One future day you may be capable of observing yet more, or more-er, so to speak, and may be able to test, but until then it is like counting the number of angels on a pinhead. How many angels can fit on a pinhead? As many as there is room for, that's how many. > How do you know that it is the large scale structure you are > observing, and not just a micro cluster within a much larger structure > you are incapable of observing? Large scale structure has been studied in some detail to well over half the radius of the observable Universe. As someone else mentioned, anything outside the observable Universe is irrelevant to science, though perhaps fun to speculate about. SignatureSteve Willner Phone 617-495-7123 swillner@cfa.harvard.edu Cambridge, MA 02138 USA (Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial email may be sent to your ISP.) > On 11 Jul, 03:21, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > observing, and not just a micro cluster within a much larger structure > you are incapable of observing? First of all, our resident “Timberwoof” is an official naysayer of the DARPA kind, that knows only of what’s accepted by the Old Testament of their Zionist/Nazi New World Order that refuses to accept or allow deductive reasoning, no matters how physics proper or peer replicated you’d care to make it. Other’s of the all-knowing Timberwoof mindset will follow suit, because such birds of a faith-based feather do in fact stick together. Zanthius: Let us assume that there are other clusters, larger than superclusters, and that everything we have observed of the universe is within such a cluster. Then couldn't the "local expansion" of our cluster, merely be due to interaction with other such clusters? Of course it could, as there’s more to stellar and galactic life than binary pairs doing their mutual tidal radius thing. For good or bad, it seems cosmic, local stellar and black hole interactions are the norm. The universe as a whole may be expanding, but everything within isn’t in continual redshift. Even though the faith-based mainstream status quo doesn’t care to agree, it seems our multiple ice-age and subsequent thawing out cycles happened for a perfectly good off-world reason. The most recent ice- age thaw is however our last such ice-age this planet w/moon will ever see. What future generations will have to look forward to is yet another encounter of the stellar kind, that’ll seriously illuminate and even slightly warm us up. In addition to long orbital trek binaries, there’s perhaps also our fair share of trinary and even more complex examples of those far tidal reaching stellar groups within our vast Milky Way of <500 billion stars. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/binary_stars.html “APOD: 2005 August 30 - Albireo: A Bright and Beautiful Double Explanation: Sometimes, even a small telescope can help unlock a hidden beauty of the heavens. Such is the case of the bright double star Albireo. Seen at even slight magnification, Albireo unfolds from a bright single point into a beautiful double star of strikingly different colors. At 380 light years distant, the two bright stars of Albireo are comparatively far from each other and take about 75,000 years to complete a single orbit. The brighter yellow star is itself a binary star system, but too close together to be resolved even with a telescope. Albireo, pictured above, is the fifth brightest star system toward the constellation of the Swan (Cygnus) and easily visible to the unaided eye.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albireo “It is not known whether the two components are orbiting around each other in a physical binary system. If they are, their orbital period is probably at least 100,000 years.” I believe our orbit or close encounter of the Sirius star/solar system is currently worth 105,000 ~ 110,000 years, perhaps nowadays it getting a wee bit longer ever since the all-inclusive Sirius star/ solar system lost track of 4+ solar masses. If a 5 and 3.3 solar mass binary star system is good for 75,000 to 100,000 years per orbit, then perhaps ours at 110,000 years per orbit or per close encounter with the Sirius star/solar system isn’t so terribly unlikely. Of course this would mean those global ice-age and subsequent thawing cycles have some logical association with our cosmic trek that has us headed towards and then going away from the likes of such an impressive star system as Sirius. Currently (as of 8.6 years ago) the measured rate by which we’re closing in on Sirius is 7.5 km/sec. As we get closer to one another, that closing velocity or rate of encounter should increase up until our elliptical trek has us once again headed away from Sirius. Since everything within this universe is in one way or another gravity associated, and/or in orbit around something (even if it’s just a black antimatter hole of a galaxy core), the imposed question of the day is; how close have we gotten to Sirius in the past, and how close will we manage to get this next time around? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth > Let us assume that there are other clusters, larger than > superclusters, and that everything we have observed of the universe is > within such a cluster. > > Then couldn't the "local expansion" of our cluster, merely be due to > interaction with other such clusters? Of course it could, as there’s more to stellar and galactic life than binary pairs doing their mutual tidal radius thing. For good or bad, cosmic, local stellar and black hole interactions are the norm. The universe as a whole may be expanding, but everything within isn’t in continual redshift. Even though the faith-based mainstream status quo doesn’t care to agree, it seems our multiple ice-age and subsequent thawing out cycles happened for a perfectly good off-world reason. The most recent ice- age thaw is however our last such ice-age this planet w/moon will ever see. What future generations will have to look forward to is yet another encounter of the stellar kind, that’ll seriously illuminate and even slightly warm us up. In addition to long orbital trek binaries, there’s perhaps also our fair share of trinary and even more complex examples of those far tidal reaching stellar groups within our vast Milky Way of <500 billion stars. http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/binary_stars.html “APOD: 2005 August 30 - Albireo: A Bright and Beautiful Double Explanation: Sometimes, even a small telescope can help unlock a hidden beauty of the heavens. Such is the case of the bright double star Albireo. Seen at even slight magnification, Albireo unfolds from a bright single point into a beautiful double star of strikingly different colors. At 380 light years distant, the two bright stars of Albireo are comparatively far from each other and take about 75,000 years to complete a single orbit. The brighter yellow star is itself a binary star system, but too close together to be resolved even with a telescope. Albireo, pictured above, is the fifth brightest star system toward the constellation of the Swan (Cygnus) and easily visible to the unaided eye.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albireo “It is not known whether the two components are orbiting around each other in a physical binary system. If they are, their orbital period is probably at least 100,000 years.” I believe our orbit or close encounter of the Sirius star/solar system is currently worth 105,000 ~ 110,000 years, perhaps nowadays it getting a wee bit longer ever since the all-inclusive Sirius star/ solar system lost track of 4+ solar masses. If a 5 and 3.3 solar mass binary star system is good for 75,000 to 100,000 years per orbit, then perhaps ours at 110,000 years per orbit or per close encounter with the Sirius star/solar system isn’t so terribly unlikely. Of course this would mean those global ice-age and subsequent thawing cycles have some logical association with our cosmic trek that has us headed towards and then going away from the likes of such an impressive star system as Sirius. Currently (as of 8.6 years ago) the measured rate by which we’re closing in on Sirius is 7.5 km/sec. As we get closer to one another, that closing velocity or rate of encounter should increase up until our elliptical trek has us once again headed away from Sirius. Since everything within this universe is in one way or another gravity associated, and/or in orbit around something (even if it’s just a black antimatter hole of a galaxy core), the imposed question of the day is; how close have we gotten to Sirius in the past, and how close will we manage to get this next time around? - Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.