December 21st, 2012 11:11am GMT - Snapshot from Earth and Sun.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Ok if that's a proof, can you please explain it to us

The proper motion of Sirius relative to the Solar System exceeds the escape velocity.

along with the difference in Sirius' motion (slower, more stable) relative to the "fixed" rotation of the Zodiac stars ie: why this is the case

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Phage

I'll just have to take your word for it then that there's no long range orbital relationship between our sun and Sirius and that it's stability relative to the rest of the turning zodiacal stars means nothing of any significance.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

It certainly doesn't mean we are orbiting Sirius but you don't have to take my word for it. You could take some time a learn something about proper motion.

reply to post by Phage


I was actually rather curious as to how this can be explained

As prof. Jed Buchwald has pointed "Sirius remains about the same distance from the equinoxes — and so from the solstices — throughout these many centuries, despite precession." [7] For the same reason, the helical rising (or zenith) of Sirius does not slip through the calendar (at the precession rate of about one day per 71.6 years), as other stars do. This remarkable stability within the solar year may be one reason that the Egyptians used it as a basis for their calendar whereas no other star would have sufficed.
The lunisolar theory of precession requires that the earth wobble enough to lose one complete rotation on its axis and one revolution around the sun (relative to the fixed stars) per precession cycle. Modern astronomers now measure the rate of precession via radio telescopes fixed on distant quasars and a process known as Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) confirms the earth changes orientation to the stars at about 50.3 arc seconds p/y, equating to one complete precession of the equinox in about 25,700 years. Nonetheless, Sirius, due to its proper motion, remains practically stationary making it the ideal marker for ancient Egyptian planning purposes.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by NewAgeMan

As I've pointed out twice before. Read the last sentence.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

As I've pointed out twice before. Read the last sentence.

Fine but can YOU explain it to us? In a nutshell. Thanks.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
To both further complicate matters, while giving us a paradigm shifting view of the motion of our solar system through or I should say with, the galaxy (although the angle of the solar system as depicted here may be off somewhat) check this out!

In spite of the occasional snarkiness of some of the posts, this thread is enjoyable as a learning experience for those of us who don't already know everything there is to know about the motions and relationships involved.

It's been an eye opener and has sparked my interest in Astronomy.

bump for the viewing pleasure of participants in this thread.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Seems pretty clear.
The proper motion of Sirius makes its apparent motion due to precession less than it would otherwise.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

bump for the viewing pleasure of participants in this thread.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

The Sun is like a comet, dragging the planets in its wake

The Sun is not like a comet.
The planets are not dragged it its wake.
Comets do not have a wake. They have tails which are pushed off of them by the solar wind.
Comets do not have objects orbiting them.

this thread is enjoyable as a learning experience for those of us who don't already know everything there is to know about the motions and relationships involved.

Perhaps listening to what is being said and looking at the evidence instead of contradicting it would make the experience even more enjoyable.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by galactix

 

because we rotate about the dog star.

You mean revolve?

You claim Sirius is stationary. If we are revolving around it, shouldn't its position change? The position of the Sun changes as we revolve around it.

you are being just like the clergy who refused to believe that the earth orbited the sun.

Oh, they believed Galileo. They had to because his evidence was irrefutable. They just couldn't publicly acknowledge what he told them. Wouldn't have been politically prudent.

i meant orbit. duh. you knew that.

the position of the sun changes relative to the zodiac. yep. the stars are a backdrop that we measure our rotation by. so every day the Sol, relative to us lies in a diferant part of the yearly fixd zodiac: hence sagiatious sun over aries sun.

sirius does this as well.
on a yearly basis.
but every year it come back to the same point. lets pick a date referance, which is simply an angular position along our rearly orbit track. if we look at sirius every year at this time and compare it to a stationary referance on earth. it stays still... within its baycenter wobble.

it does this while the other zodiacal stars move slowly 'backward' along the ecliptic. this is same time next year. k? NOT the yearly revolution.

think about twist around in a big room with another human. you hold hands and spin about your cloective center. if all you do is look at your partner then the 'back ground' of the room 'rotates' while your partner stands 'still'

all the other back ground zodial stars 'roate' as we syar the dog star in the face and orbit its center of mass. The calcs have been done: there's plenty of mass there to hold us in position.


i begin to tire of this argument....

Our sun does not orbit Sirius.

As pointed out in another thread, Sirius has a proper motion of 1.2 arcseconds/year in declination and .546 arcseconds per year in right ascension, this gives it 15 km/sec and 6.8 km/sec velocity relative to our solar system.

The distance to Sirius is about 8.6 light years. Both Sirius A and B have a combined mass of 3 times that of our sun. Given that mass and the distance from Sirius, the escape velocity is at 0.1 km/s, meaning that with our sun moving at 220 km/s it can not be in orbit about the Sirius system.

The Sirius system is also much younger than our sun at somewhere between 200 million to 300 million years old (verses the 4.5 billion year age of our sun), which means that our sun could not have been orbiting a star that didn't exist when it formed.

Sirius is moving towards our solar system and over the next 60,000 years will continue to become brighter. After that it will recede from us, but will be one of the brightest stars in our sky for the next 200,000 years.

sources:

Sirius

And

SIMBAD query result

reply to post by galactix

if we look at sirius every year at this time and compare it to a stationary referance on earth. it stays still

Almost. Because it's apparent motion almost matches the apparent motion caused by precession.

The calcs have been done

Yes. The proper motion of Sirius relative to the Solar System is much greater than the escape velocity.

The combined mass of Sirius A and B is about 3 solar masses.
stars.astro.illinois.edu...

The distance from the Solar System to Sirius is about 8.6 light years.
stars.astro.illinois.edu...

This makes the escape velocity 0.1 km/s.
www.calctool.org...

The radial velocity of Sirius relative to the Solar System is about 7.6 km/s.


We are moving far to fast relative to Sirius to be in orbit around it.

In order to hold the Solar System in orbit the mass of Sirius would have to be about 15,000 times that of the Sun.

If you disagree, please provide your calculations.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

The Sun is like a comet, dragging the planets in its wake

The Sun is not like a comet.
The planets are not dragged it its wake.
Comets do not have a wake. They have tails which are pushed off of them by the solar wind.
Comets do not have objects orbiting them.

this thread is enjoyable as a learning experience for those of us who don't already know everything there is to know about the motions and relationships involved.

Perhaps listening to what is being said and looking at the evidence instead of contradicting it would make the experience even more enjoyable.

"The planets are not dragged it its wake."

how can u say this with a striaght face while also knowing that we (eventualy) orbit the GC.

thats like saying that the earth does not drag the moon along in its wake.

i mean: really!

so silly

reply to post by galactix

thats like saying that the earth does not drag the moon along in its wake.

A wake follows behind an object. The Moon is held by the Earth's gravitational field. It does not follow behind Earth in its orbit. It parallels it. If it were being dragged in the Earth's wake it would not orbit the Earth.

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Our sun does not orbit Sirius.

As pointed out in another thread, Sirius has a proper motion of 1.2 arcseconds/year in declination and .546 arcseconds per year in right ascension, this gives it 15 km/sec and 6.8 km/sec velocity relative to our solar system.

The distance to Sirius is about 8.6 light years. Both Sirius A and B have a combined mass of 3 times that of our sun. Given that mass and the distance from Sirius, the escape velocity is at 0.1 km/s, meaning that with our sun moving at 220 km/s it can not be in orbit about the Sirius system.

The Sirius system is also much younger than our sun at somewhere between 200 million to 300 million years old (verses the 4.5 billion year age of our sun), which means that our sun could not have been orbiting a star that didn't exist when it formed.

Sirius is moving towards our solar system and over the next 60,000 years will continue to become brighter. After that it will recede from us, but will be one of the brightest stars in our sky for the next 200,000 years.

sources:

Sirius

And

SIMBAD query result

"Sirius has a proper motion of 1.2 arcseconds/year in declination and .546 arcseconds per year in right ascension, this gives it 15 km/sec and 6.8 km/sec velocity relative to our solar system."

using what as a referance?

by comparison the zodiacal stars move at 50 arcseconds/yr instaed of .5: big difference.

Bro, EVERYTHING IS MOVING.
thats why its so confusing.

if we measure our year by distant quasars it is longer than if we measure by Sirius (see Sothic cycle via wiki): which is right?

if earth orbits Sol and Sol orbits Sirius then of course sirius (and us along with him) orbit yet another center of mass.

do you really believe that it goes : earth, sun. GC?

really?


as far as young and old: this is by no means a proven thing. celestial and stellar age are a matter of opinion only. Heck we can't even proper explain the Suns thermodynamics, how the heck can we know it's age?

thats just silly.


again

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by galactix

 

if we look at sirius every year at this time and compare it to a stationary referance on earth. it stays still

Almost. Because it's apparent motion almost matches the apparent motion caused by precession.

The calcs have been done

Yes. The proper motion of Sirius relative to the Solar System is much greater than the escape velocity.

The combined mass of Sirius A and B is about 3 solar masses.
stars.astro.illinois.edu...

The distance from the Solar System to Sirius is about 8.6 light years.
stars.astro.illinois.edu...

This makes the escape velocity 0.1 km/s.
www.calctool.org...

The radial velocity of Sirius relative to the Solar System is about 7.6 km/s.


We are moving far to fast relative to Sirius to be in orbit around it.

In order to hold the Solar System in orbit the mass of Sirius would have to be about 15,000 times that of the Sun.

If you disagree, please provide your calculations.

edit on 12/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

your leaving out dark mass bro: we already know that systems orbit black holes faster than they should.
thats why we made up the stoopid darkmass thingy.

we ignor the magnetic interactions, but thats another argument.

point is: relative velocity and gravity do not currently explain celestial movements.

argument fail

here read this bitchin science xplanation

reply to post by galactix

your leaving out dark mass bro: we already know that systems orbit black holes faster than they should.

You mean dark matter? No, we don't know systems orbit black holes faster than they should but black holes don't have anything to do with dark matter anyway.

Dark matter accounts for differences in orbital velocities from what they "should be" on a galactic (and intergalactic) scale, not on an interstellar scale and certainly not enough to keep the Solar System in orbit around Sirius.

here read this bitchin science xplanation

Nibiru. Bitchin science.

reply to post by galactix


It's called Parallax and literally hundreds of years of observations, with much more detailed observations over the last 70 years or so.

I can counter with the same type of question to you: Why do you HAVE to believe that our sun MUST be orbiting another star?

There is no physical rule or law that says that it must be that way.

Take a look at Benard's Star which is moving at 10.3 arcseconds per year, hence why it's called the "Runaway" star, and it's not orbiting another star.

However we DO have physical laws, such as Orbital Mechanics which is based on Newton's Laws of Motion, Escape Velocity and Gravitation.

And those laws pretty much say: the sun is not orbiting Sirius.

New theories are fine, and should be encouraged, but they also need to show evidence and stand up to peer review. Posting something on YouTube does not "make it so".

If you want the sun to orbit another star, then you're going to have to rewrite a lot of different laws of physics and prove that your new laws hold up under testing and peer review (something that the current laws of physics do).

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by galactix

 

your leaving out dark mass bro: we already know that systems orbit black holes faster than they should.

You mean dark matter? No, we don't know systems orbit black holes faster than they should but black holes don't have anything to do with dark matter anyway.

Dark matter accounts for differences in orbital velocities on a galactic (and intergalactic) scale, not on an interstellar scale and certainly not enough to keep the Solar System in orbit around Sirius.

here read this bitchin science xplanation

Nibiru. Bitchin science.

edit on 12/16/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)

dark matter, dark mass: whatever , bro.

and black holes sit in the middle of galaxies. so we orbit the black hole, yes? nitpicking arguments are so irritating.

so... galaxies hold themselves together and have different dynamics than solar systems, eh?
really?
darkmass only applies on the intergalactic scale?

more silliness. especially since there IS NO dark matter. lol


and of course you'd pick on the one discreddited word in that article.

nibiru is than name given to a star known by the Egyptians, not some dark adversary planet worshiped by doomtards.
so much confusion.

try to understand it's use in context.

sigh.

but you can't can you. oh well.


all ur science will belong to us

soon enuf.

soon enuf.....

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by galactix

 

It's called Parallax and literally hundreds of years of observations, with much more detailed observations over the last 70 years or so.

I can counter with the same type of question to you: Why do you HAVE to believe that our sun MUST be orbiting another star?

There is no physical rule or law that says that it must be that way.

Take a look at Benard's Star which is moving at 10.3 arcseconds per year, hence why it's called the "Runaway" star, and it's not orbiting another star.

However we DO have physical laws, such as Orbital Mechanics which is based on Newton's Laws of Motion, Escape Velocity and Gravitation.

And those laws pretty much say: the sun is not orbiting Sirius.

New theories are fine, and should be encouraged, but they also need to show evidence and stand up to peer review. Posting something on YouTube does not "make it so".

If you want the sun to orbit another star, then you're going to have to rewrite a lot of different laws of physics and prove that your new laws hold up under testing and peer review (something that the current laws of physics do).

"There is no physical rule or law that says that it must be that way."
only logical progression.
moon orbits earth. earth orbits sun. sun orbits next higher mass. that system yet again.

to say anything else would be illogical.


" literally hundreds of years of observations, with much more detailed observations over the last 70 years or so" which is why we are confident that the dog star stays 'still'. thank you for making my point for me.

"However we DO have physical laws, such as Orbital Mechanics which is based on Newton's Laws of Motion, Escape Velocity and Gravitation."

and those laws cannot explain why the observed masses orbit their centers faster than they should for their measured mass.

those laws DO NOT explain celestial mechanics. not without darkmatter. even our current precise measurements of the moons motion (it is actually moving away from us!) is not fully explained by newton's laws. i mean he's close (kudos there), but not quite all the way there.

those laws only work if we invoke an imaginary substance.

fail.

so much fail.


it will make way more sense when we include magnetic and electrical forces and interactions.
your matter based theories will die soon enuf.

progress happens.

/whew