astromark

I'm sorry if this is a overlap of subjects but.. On revue of the information available we can not be sure at all that a intelagent signal was sent. and that asumptioons of who or even from where have not been satisfied. Until more information changes what we have on this it must remain a unknown. Just as the star dimming story being concluded to be dyson sphere must be regarded suspiciously .

It's good to see some real science and descoverary being quoted here.. the numbers are unraviling as we speak.. Pluto is a long way from us and until very recantly little was known of the other bodies and respective masses.. Orbital periods and the precision of information required is not at our fingertips as readily as you seem to think. Hours of study and months of observation.. Not one of the telescopes involved is a back yard observer.. Gaining information with such precision is diffacult and time consuming.. Understanding what is seen just as.. I will wait a little longer, for the most recant data which will expand our knowledge greatly... Waiting..

Yes, no life.. but the barycenter was the subject.. Wibbly wobbly and hot as hell.. You mentioned Pluto.. have a look at the 'SETI inst.,' site.. they have images of the wobble of pluto.. Charion is 1/8 of pluto.mass. and close..

On this I will use Alpha Centarous A and B.. The brighter of the pointers to the Southern Cross. ~ The double. The distance between these two stars is about the same as from Our Sun right on out to Uranus. Orbiting about a common berycenter that would be just a little eskew of halway between them.. A 88 year period is observed.. Of these two stars we observe that a 10% larger and 10% smaller than Sol..Our sun.. That this barycenter still allows for a near to star B, a planet. Orbiting the near to it star. Not the barycenter.. No obvious ecentricity is observed and ( sorry for my spelling.) used a older lap top and do not see a spell check box.. and so slow.. On this subject of barycenteres.. Earths Moon sets up the neatest study of this for us.. as its tidal locked and does have a orbit that is not purfect.. Mostly inside of earth but some distance from the core.. A wiki search will show you more than I can on this old laptop.. Mark.

~ Great swaths of numbers are required, but obtainable..We know that to understand this a 'Graph' could be drawn to help with the understandings.. The planet Venus is a great deal smaller ( Mass, and gravity well.) than the Gas giant Jupiter., But the actuall 'felt effect' is close to the same. from the Suns point of view. There is a formular for calculating mass effect. Involving distance and gravity mass.. and that if you add orbital velocities the calculations are part of orbital machanics.. It's a level of mathmatics I have zero experties at.. So can not contribute in that regard.. I hope my understanding helps..

Answering questions from children at a public viewing at a local observatory.. Has tought me not to over answer the questions asked or implied. The mass of the Salar System is in motion. It has been sinse before the Sun ignited it's fusion core..and swept the system clear.. The center of mass is not the same thing as the barycenter.. We all seem to understand that the motion and orbital paths are constantly adjusting the barycenter of each object of mass.. This little side issue of the ISS and of what it's orbiting.. I will go out on the point.. Planet Earths center of mass.. which is constantly in motion.

No. I do not disagree with what is science as we know it.. The gravity of all of the mass of the Solar System includes the Gas giants and the masses of every component particle.. I understand it thus; Each body ( planet ) has a effective gravity mass.. That in a top down view of the 11.8 year cycle a signiffacant wobble is apparent.. The Solar mass is a gas ball.. It gets pulled in sevral directions.. Not just the gravity of Jupiter., all of them.. and including the galactic attraction. Remember it's taken obout 5 billion years for the settling to reach this point.. The early solar system would have been chaotic., and we know that it was.. The solar system is a component part of the Milkyway.. It all effects the actuall motion.. Look closlly at tidal charts.. The tidal highs and lows do not match the Lunar possition.. I call it gravity lagging.. It's real.

~ It's been a while.. I have been invited to look at, and have.. Thanks.. ~ Try and think of the PROTO planetary disk that WAS the Solar system before the planets cleared there respective orbits.. Yes the Barycenter would have been very near the Suns actuall center.. That gravity at work..the subject gets complicated by radial motion. Everything is in motion.. Every few years the two gas giants pass each other and a signifacant wobble is noted.. Babies are born and some have freckles and red hair.. Yes that what this is about.. It might as well be.. I have gone through this whole thread TWICE and can not see a question to answer.. Oh., and Yes.. the three inner planets do orbit the Sun. Not the barycenter.. They each have there own barycenter.. Does that help.

I think you saw a nuclear test, we saw some of those from nz in the early 70s, and they lit the sky for a few secounds, 15. sort of like lightning.

Its being perdantic. Space is empty. even though we know its not. If you exept that space is such a large place as to be infanite. as I do. Then you could say that space is allmost empty... allmost... If you factor in to this equation all the matter in the universe. The space between the galaxies would be concidered empty. We know its not, but it is, relativly speeking. I do not think you can stretch or askew nothing. It may be posible to distort, shrink, or stretch the spaces between objects, by moving the objects. Not the space between them.

Its being perdantic. Space is empty. even though we know its not. If you exept that space is such a large place as to be infanite. as I do. Then you could say that space is allmost empty... allmost... If you factor in to this equation all the matter in the universe. The space between the galaxies would be concidered empty. We know its not, but it is, relativly speeking. I do not think you can stretch or askew nothing. It may be posible to distort, shrink, or stretch the spaces between objects, by moving the objects. Not the space between them.

Time commes at us from the future and becommes the past in an instant. We can not move in it, we never will be able to. Time is relative to us only becouse we have a limited amount of it. We look out into the universe and see what has all ready become history. Some of it millions of years ago. We can not change what has happened. Nor could we expect to change what has not happened yet. There never will be a method of time travel. Its either all ready happened or it hasent happened yet. It really is that simple. We may however be able to make an impression on the universe. The third planet in this solar system may oneday simply disapear in an instant as some scientist explodes us into an anti mater experoment.

I tend to agree with this idea that time is not a dimention. It appears to me as just a method of measuring the pasage of a moment from the future to the past. Noting that our view of the universe is distorted by the fact that all we see is history. I understand a dimention as somthing like width, depth, and hight. Time is somthing diferent.

Thanks Alexa and Martin. Ant the web a great place. you have done a fine job of putting all this in a list for us.