zankaon

February 9, 2017

Modeling and gravitational potential tapering? Angular inertia for Oort cloud?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , , , — zankaon @ 2:43 pm

Might gravitational potential, instead of inversely dropping off, have a different (exponential like?) tapering off? Differing, electric field, and also radioactivity, appears to suddenly drop off? Thus is there precedence for differences in decreasing field strength, and decrease in other phenomena?

Might such rendering be consistent with the continued apparent gravitational binding of Proxima centauri in it’s triple star system, even though seeming through calculations, being too far away from other 2 stars? Likewise is gravitational potential seemingly too weak, via calculations, to keep our moon in orbit? Hence might gravitational potential have a different gradual tapering off, not reflected in our calculations or modeling?

Thus rather than inversely dropping off, might there seem to be tappering of such potential far out; for example the Oort cloud, and Proxima centauri with a period of ~500,000 years, consistent with ~15,000 AU distance to alpha centauri; all part of a triple system. And perhaps even further outward – a neutrino belt?

Might more accurate modeling of such potential involve expansion as a series, with just inverse fall off as the zero term? Again tailoring such expansion series to suit any empirical findings, such as above?

Alternatively, rather than assumed tapering of gravitational potential, might angular momentum transfer alone account for ongoing migration, as well as circular orbiting, of KBO objects as part of Oort cloud? Likewise for far out neutrino belt? 

Thus is outer extent of stellar systems, and of our solar system, defined by angular inertia i.e. from angular momentum transfer in a flat 3-space, and not from gravitation? Thus no neccessity for tappering of gravitational potential model?

Is Proxima centauri’s distant from it’s binary companions at approximately that of Oort cloud? Based on above, it would seem closer in when compared to Oort cloud estimates. Yet might there be the possibility of a larger mass nearer to Oort cloud distance?

The Oort cloud is assumed to be comprised of just cometary mass scale. Since gravitational potential and curvature at such distant would not seem defined; hence could one have an undetected gas giant (historically related to Uranus’ tilted axis?) at such distance, and even a red dwarf, say .08 solar mass; neither one significantly affecting the rest of our stellar system? Or might long period comets we detect, be the result of (and consistent with) destabilzation by a gas giant or red dwarf nearer to Oort cloud?

A red dwarf mass could be infrared detected, including infrared spectroscopy. An invisible gas giant might only be detected by occultation of a background star(s).

Advertisements

December 27, 2011

Oort Cloud – not gravitationally bound? Hence angular inertia describing outer extent of stellar systems?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: — zankaon @ 7:01 pm

Hipparcus indicates that our supposed closest star alpha Centuari is 742 marcs parallax, which corresponds to about 1.3 pc or 4.3 lyrs away. Stars form in  multiple, such as for clusters of 100s -1000s. Some such sister stars must be close by; thus our sun has sister star(s) at closer distance, with higher parallax values.

Look to the sky; all things being equal, brighter means closer. Also infrared telescope could be used to look for cold gas giants, and compare image size for relative closeness. In fact does the Brown dwarf survey, and other surveys, include some large infrared planets which might indicate a nearby sister star? Such sister stars would have a center of mass, and hence a central force. But would one have a spherical distributed cometary cloud?

Might the Oort cloud not be gravitationally bound; but rather via angular momentum transfer of objects from KBO region, remain in orbit with constant speed (i.e. no central force, and hence no Kepler Laws) – hence designated as angular inertia? Thus is outer extent of stellar systems defined, not by gravitation, but by such angular inertia, in a flat 3-space? Would calculations be consistent with no gravitational field  i.e. no curvature, at such Oort cloud distance? Likewise for neutrino belt?

December 22, 2011

Hipparcus, and our Oort cloud – not gravitationally bound?

Filed under: Letters from Ionia — Tags: , — zankaon @ 6:22 pm

Hipparcus indicates that our supposed closest star alpha centuari is 742 marcs away, which is about 1.3 pc or 4.3 lyrs away. Stars form in multiple in open clusters of 100-1000; hence our sun probably has some sister stars at much closer distance, with higher parallax values. 

Also infrared telescope could be used to look for cold gas giants, and compare image size for relative closesness. In fact does the Brown dwarf survey, and other surveys, include some large gas giant planets, in infrared, which indicate a nearby sister star? Such sister stars would have a center of mass, and hence via central force, a spherical distributed cometary cloud ? 

Or is the Oort not gravitationaly bound; rather via angular momentum transfer, KBO objects form Oort cloud, with constant speed (with no central force and thus no Kepler Laws); hence designated as angular inertia. Hence are bound objects of outer extent of stellar system(s) not defined by gravitation, but rather by angular inertia in a flat 3-space?

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.