Starship Asterisk*

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap101103.html
http://asterisk.apod.com/vie ... =9&t=21875

That's amazing if true?????? two stars that orbit each other in ONE DAY. Their speed must be extraordinary even for stars.
It is my belief that IF two stars passed perpendicular to each other (the geometric closest point of approach) and proceed away from each.....AS THE ALlEGED BINARY STARS MUST NECESSARILY DO.....that given that the gravity force decreases by 1/square of the distance between them......the combined receding speed between the two of them make it a GEOMETRIC IMPOSSIBLILTY....that they would then generated the necessary forces to start a binary orbit.........

IN THE REAL WORLD REALITY WE CAN SEE AND VERIFY......such as our own planetary orbit systems.....they all share one thing in common.......A LARGE CENTRAL STAR......around which a much smaller objects rotate, which I submit is not by accident. Rather it is essential to creating an orbit.
In an orbit that has the characteristic of being divided into ONE APPROACH PHASE TO EACH OTHER AND ONE RECEDING PHASE.......That are divided by the two points in the continuing orbit in which the tangent to the orbit at those points are parallel to each other.
For these orbits .....we factually know to exist.......they only come into being if the masses and forces and speeds are within such limits that one of two other obvious possibilities did not result. 1. The central object was so massive that it reverse the would be orbiting mass with too much force such that it brought it back into a collision with the central star. or 2. It didn't have enough mass, in which case while it may have substantially altered the would be orbiting mass.....it did not have sufficient mass so that the inherent limitation of gravitation force ie: it decreases by 1/square of the distance....was not sufficient to change the course sufficient to create the orbit path before it became to weak to do so.

THERE IS THE CRITICAL DIFFERENCE, In the alleged binary situation.....the orbit is divided....necessarily by definition of its alleged existence.......into FOUR PARTS: 1. A receding path......2. Followed by a approaching path.....followed by another receding portion of the path.....and a second approaching path. The four separation points in the alleged binary orbit situation would necessary would be: 1. The point in which the orbiting bodies passed each other, at their closest point of approach...where they went from an approach phase to a receding phase....and 2. that point where they were furtherest from each other where they went from receding from each other to approaching each other again. 3. When they pass each other again at their opposite closest point of approach and start receding from each other. And finally 4. the second time when they are furtherest from each other again switch from receding to approaching each other.

This situation is a MATHMATICAL AND PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. To understand why….one must remember that the resultant gravitational force applied to an orbiting body is NOT JUST THE SIZE OF THE GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, at any given point…..But also….. The angle at which that force is applied in relationship to the angle of motion of the orbiting body in relationship to the direction of applied gravitational force, at any given time. That is to say, for example in the two extreme situations: were an object moving directly away from the gravitation source, the vector resultant force would be at its minmum…..ie: gravitational force minus the object motion force.. On the other hand, in the situation where an equal gravitational force is applied in a direction 90 degrees to the motion of the object, at any given time, the gravitational force would have its MAXIMUM resultant force; for it is unopposed by the motion of the object.

It is this reality that explains the illusionary apparent dichotomy of the factual orbits we observe in our planetary orbits ie: the greatest orbit curvature occurs both at its apogee and perigee (ie: the greatest and least distance of orbit) when the orbiting body is going at both its fastest AND slowest speeds. Why? Because even tho slower, at the greater distance……and the basic gravitational force is less……in both cases its RESULTANT applied force of the available gravitational force, tho less, is AT ITS MAXIMUM EFFECTIVENESS; and therefore capable of dealing with the invariable lesser speed of the orbiting body at the greater distance.

In the proposed binary scheme…..by definition of a binary orbit…..when the two bodies are at their closest and the gravitational force is 90 degrees to their motion, the curvature of the orbit is at its MINIMUM……..BUT both the available gravitational force …..AND…….the resulting gravitational force vectors ARE AT THEIR MAXIMUM. Which among other things…..makes parallel but opposite motions of the proposed binary orbit bodies, at this point….IMPOSSIBLE. In fact, I submit that any attempt to compute a repeated BINARY orbit situation using the actual resultant forces that combine the ACTUAL REALITY OF ORBIT MOTION AND GRAVITATIONAL FORCE, FAILS…….

And I submit similary, that there is no reason to rationally believe that it is appropriate to apply the "center of mass" concept for solids, which internally create "leverage" between its parts to orbiting bodies who have no similar leverage situation. And therefore, the alleged binary orbiting of the earth and moon fails also. There is simply no force or reason for the earth to move in a direction opposite to the moon.

rowlandstevens wrote:That's amazing if true?????? two stars that orbit each other in ONE DAY.

It is common. There are thousands of examples of this.

It is my belief that IF two stars passed perpendicular to each other (the geometric closest point of approach) and proceed away from each.....AS THE ALlEGED BINARY STARS MUST NECESSARILY DO.....that given that the gravity force decreases by 1/square of the distance between them......the combined receding speed between the two of them make it a GEOMETRIC IMPOSSIBLILTY....that they would then generated the necessary forces to start a binary orbit.........

Binary stars do not form as the result of stars passing each other. They form in place, together in the same protostar system.

IN THE REAL WORLD REALITY WE CAN SEE AND VERIFY......such as our own planetary orbit systems.....they all share one thing in common.......A LARGE CENTRAL STAR......around which a much smaller objects rotate, which I submit is not by accident. Rather it is essential to creating an orbit.

It is not. Orbits are what you always have with two or more bodies that are gravitationally bound (actually, even when not bound you have orbits, they are simply open). Orbits are not "created".

No point in commenting on the rest, which seems to get increasingly bizarre. May I suggest you study up a bit on orbital dynamics, starting perhaps with Newton and Kepler, before proposing more of your ideas?

Mr. Peterson:
I checked your website. It appears that you are right on your web site when you state that you are an “amateur” astronomer. You are also right that there are probably thousands of examples of people like you asserting that there are thousands of binary stars and then assert as an appropriate response to my factual reasons why the concept of binary stars is incorrect….that the repeated assertion of an incorrect concept is a reason to believe that they do exist. It also true that the self-appointed Learned Centers of the World for 1500 years not only asserted but in fact killed people who disagreed with them….THAT THOUSANDS OF STARS REVOLVED AROUND THE EARTH.

I doubt seriously that you have any rational reason to propose what you said in your response to me:
“Binary stars do not form as the result of stars passing each other. They form in place, together in the same protostar system” . . . and … “Orbits are what you always have with two or more bodies that are gravitationally bound (actually, even when not bound, you have orbits, they are simply Open). Orbits are not “created”.
I submit that your phrase “they are simply Open orbits is irrational gibberish. If you want to redefine the use the term orbit in an irrational sense you are free to do so. But in that case you are not responding to what I wrote…..but only to what you internally think yourself. The use of the term orbit by me, is the obvious and common use of the word orbit such as we can obviously see in the Reality of the World most us live in, the moon orbiting the earth or the earth orbiting the sun, for example.

Your assumption that I have not read Newton’s book or Kepler’s is false. In fact, I believe that Newton’s assertion that it is a universal law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction is patently and obviously false. The mere fact that that it has often been repeated and assumed to be true…..is not evidence that it is correct. If it were true, then the known Reality of Motion could not exist. For every time a force was exerted on another body, it would be “magically” opposed by an equal and opposite force. Yet, in the known Reality, we can observe that, as often as not, when a force is applied to another object it creates a force in the receiving body that is in the same direction as the applied force….NOT AN OPPOSITE FORCE……and motion is the result.

I reject your use of the meaningless adjective “bizzar” you use to characterize my belief. What it does establish is that you are not capable of understanding the rather simple use of common vector force analysis. Do that and then tell me that I am wrong. I may be wrong, I can accept that. But I do not accept the common occurrence in astronomy circles of a willingness to redefine Realty and give as a reason to do so that if Reality were suspended in the proposed way…..it would explain some observation that astronomers perceive that they see. A classic example being the accepted concept of “Black Holes” and let’s see……the number of alleged “Quarks” is now in the hundreds, many of which propose an explanation of some “supposed” observation by asserting that some Rational principle of reality is “suspended” in the observed environment. Such an argument form is known as the false logic called “bootstrapping” in which some assumption of truth in the premise is then used as a reason to assert the truth of the premise. Not to mention that such thought processes violate the accepted reliability of using the Scientific Method of Experimentation and Research that says that if the proposed conclusion doesn’t match the Reality of the Results of the Experiment it should be rejected……not to assert that the Reality no longer exist.

And for reliability of your assertions it might be a good idea to return to the scientific method. I don’t know how far apart your imaginary binary stars orbit each other. But assuming they were at the modest distance of Neptune and the Sun….a quick calculation would mean that they would have to exceed the speed of light to complete the orbit you assert is done in 1 day.

But I didn’t write the reply to your assertions with any thought that I would receive a rational reply to what I wrote. Rather I was curious if any reply would in fact basically assert again the suspension of the Realities of the World we live in. Your reply speaks for itself, in that regard. This ends any further interest in this forum. Tho I love as others have noted, the beautiful pictures that APOD provides...

rowlandstevens wrote:Mr. Peterson:
I checked your website. It appears that you are right on your web site when you state that you are an “amateur” astronomer. You are also right that there are probably thousands of examples of people like you asserting that there are thousands of binary stars and then assert as an appropriate response to my factual reasons why the concept of binary stars is incorrect...

Okay. Not much more to say here.

Some people might enjoy applying the response against John Baez's famous crackpot index. I don't have time to do the calculation, but I'm thinking this will produce a pretty high score.

Chris Peterson wrote:John Baez's

I read this as "Joan Baez" and thought... really?! Joan Baez?!? Wow, Joan Baez!

Love the link and I'm glad to have it; thanks!