Addressing the formation of the solar system
BURT
How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?
There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
for the order of the solar system we now see?
Nobody can do it. And never will.
Mitch Raemsch
Mark Earnest
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64532a2e-a474-414e...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Gas does not come together.
It dissipates.
There is no way the solar system could have formed,
except by supernatural accomplishment.
Martin Brown
Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty well.
Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Mark Earnest
"Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3vDCl.19023$%e2....@newsfe24.iad...
No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
Mike Dworetsky
news:2uGdnRR-2_B2lkbU...@posted.internetamerica...
No, you tell me how "Goddidit" is not a cryptic explanation first.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Martin Brown
Gravitational attraction of mostly neutral matter, a small amount of
dissipative friction and radiative cooling of the accretion disk is all
that is needed to allow solar systems to form and planets to condense.
Gravity is the weakest magnitude force but it always attracts.
Shockwaves and excreta from nearby supernovae almost certainly played a
part in our solar systems formation - it contains far too much iron and
heavier elements to be a first generation star.
> Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
You mean like you do? Superstitious cryptic "just so" stories are no
"explanation" of anything.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Hagar
of the Sun didn't do it. then, Glory, Glory Hallelujah, Gawd and Jebus must
have done it, by
Intelligent Design ... was that the answer you were cruising for, moron ??
"BURT" <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:64532a2e-a474-414e...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
BURT
wrote:
> Mark Earnest wrote:
> > "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:64532a2e-a474-414e...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> >> How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?
>
> >> How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
> >> plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?
>
> >> There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
> >> for the order of the solar system we now see?
>
> >> Nobody can do it. And never will.
>
> >> Mitch Raemsch
>
> > Gas does not come together.
> > It dissipates.
> > There is no way the solar system could have formed,
> > except by supernatural accomplishment.
>
> Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty well.
>
>
> Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.
>
> Regards,
>
> - Show quoted text -
But how do you get everything to move in the same direction.
Also why is there a plane?
Chris.Bee
>
> But how do you get everything to move in the same direction.
>
> Also why is there a plane?
Dogh. Thank god for that! A thread where I feel so infinitely superior
in intelligence, wisdom and knowledge (to some of the contributors
here) that to submit any opinion would make *me* into an instant god
in my own right. Since I hate hero worship, superstition and
idolisation I had better not offer any opinion which might be written
down and cause wars, misery, poverty, hunger, overpopulation,
corruption, torture, paedophilia and all the lowest forms of knuckle
draggin', sub-uman ignorance in the far flung future. (Whoops! Nearly
forget the inevitable misogyny of the mentally and religiously
retarded) So you haven't seen me. Right? ;-)
oriel36
You are begging questions off a guy who will just make up whatever
story comes into his head,it is not important that his explanation is
correct or not but that you will spend time chasing rainbows and
deflect from further inquiry.
Your question is valid but does not have a definite answer however it
does have the outlines of one.The greatest observational coup in
astronomy since the use of telescopes,at least in this area,has to be
the isolation of the Formahaut solar system -
http://nbnl.globalwhelming.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/formalhaut.jpg
First there is the off-center star with reference to the circular dust
ring indicating the possibility of the star's galactic orbital motion
but more importantly,a creation of a default elliptical
geometry.Bye,bye Isaac !.
Then there is the real bonus -
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/astronomy/nightsky/formalhaut.jpg
I would love to expand further but perhaps the eggheads in Mensa can
figure out how to reference the planet off the dust ring and the
central star in order to consider a solar system's galactic orbital
influence on planetary heliocentric geometry...
Of course,people are chained to Isaac's multi-purpose ,all
singing ,all dancing,clockwork,calendar driven solar system.
BradGuth
> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
There's always good old gravity, the electrostatic force and the
magnetic force of attraction, in addition to just the natural process
of recombining and subsequent crystal growth of matter (aka black
diamond).
~ BG
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How does all the matter end up in an accretion disc or the solar
plane?
Mitch Raemsch
Martin Brown
> On Apr 6, 11:44 pm, Martin Brown <|||newspam...@nezumi.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> "BURT" <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:64532a2e-a474-414e...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?
>>>> How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
>>>> plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?
>>>> There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
>>>> for the order of the solar system we now see?
>>>> Nobody can do it. And never will.
>>>> Mitch Raemsch
>>> Gas does not come together.
>>> It dissipates.
>>> There is no way the solar system could have formed,
>>> except by supernatural accomplishment.
>> Gravity and conservation of angular momentum seem to work pretty well.
>>
>> http://astronomyonline.org/SolarSystem/SolarSystemFormation.asp?Cate=...
>>
>> Is a fairly reasonable basic introduction to the topic.
>>
>
You don't need to. The material when it collides exchanges momentum
scattering a few objects out of the system and binding the rest ever
more closely together. The initially random motions average out and if
there is any significant net angular momentum remaining then you have a
distinct spin axis which defines a plane perpendicular to it.
It is rare to find something undergoing gravitational collapse with zero
net angular momentum but by no means impossible. And just like the
ballerina pulling her arms in as the matter in the nebula moves in
toward the spin axis conservation of angular momentum makes it orbit faster.
>
> Also why is there a plane?
There doesn't have to be a plane. But if the material starts out with
some net angular momentum then it will define a spin axis. You probably
won't get any planets unless there is a decent accretion disk formed
around the star. People are still haggling about how often it occurs.
Globular star clusters like M13 are examples of larger aggregations of
stars tightly gravitationally bound into a spherically symmetric ball.
http://www.concentric.net/~Richmann/m13w.htm
Regards,
Martin Brown
Richard Tobin
BURT <macro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>How does all the matter end up in an accretion disc or the solar
>plane?
By now, it's clear that "BURT" or "Mitch" never learns anything. He's
either a troll or a moron. Don't waste your time explaining things to
him over and over again.
-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
BURT
> In article <11655950-bf6a-4170-acb4-7895ebd9b...@n20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> BURT <macromi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >How does all the matter end up in an accretion disc or the solar
> >plane?
>
> By now, it's clear that "BURT" or "Mitch" never learns anything. He's
> either a troll or a moron. Don't waste your time explaining things to
> him over and over again.
>
> -- Richard
> --
> Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
You sir are a baffoon.
Mark Earnest
"Mike Dworetsky" <plati...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:eKadnTTSkY_5ikbU...@bt.com...
Can't explain it, just as I thought.
Mark Earnest
It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
without some kind of help.
If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
nos...@nospam.invalid
> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
> without some kind of help.
>
> If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
> why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
Oh good grief.
And creationists wonder why no one takes them seriously.
Hey Mark, how old is the rock at the bottom of the Grand Canyon?
Mark McIntyre
>
> No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
It didn't "anti-dissipate".
> Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
Whats your "explanation"? Please don't rely on some cryptic nonsense
such as "a divine being did it".
Incidentally does our atmosphere dissipate, or does some
"anti-dissipation" force keep it swirling round the earth? How about the
moon?
(irrelevant groups snipped)
Mark McIntyre
>
> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
> without some kind of help.
Gas /is/ matter, and Martin already explained the "help" it was getting.
> If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
> why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
Amusing. But at least now we know you're either a blatant troll, or a
lunatic.
Mark McIntyre
Its spelled with a U.
Meanwhile if you read the original references quoted by Martin, you'd
know the answer.
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
news:VEQCl.103640$Yx2....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
> On 07/04/09 23:11, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
>> without some kind of help.
>
> Gas /is/ matter, and Martin already explained the "help" it was getting.
Gas is not matter the way he was using it.
He was using the word as some strange, eerie unexplainable phenomenon,
which dare not be questioned.
>
>> If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
>> why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
>
> Amusing. But at least now we know you're either a blatant troll, or a
> lunatic.
Oh no, the great gods of science have once again been offended.
Beat it, religious fanatic.
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 07/04/09 09:16, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
>
> It didn't "anti-dissipate".
It came together, right?
Then it must have dissipated in reverse, in other words.
>
>> Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
>
> Whats your "explanation"? Please don't rely on some cryptic nonsense such
> as "a divine being did it".
That is not cryptic.
>
> Incidentally does our atmosphere dissipate, or does some
> "anti-dissipation" force keep it swirling round the earth?
Earth has enough heavy elements to hold down the atmosphere.
Deep space does not.
How about the
> moon?
The Moon simply does not have sufficient gravity.
But you already knew that.
Even scientists aren't completely wrong.
Mark Earnest
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5f37a42-d9a5-4071...@r15g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
***How much gravity is one atom every few hundred feet going to give off?
BradGuth
Ever heard of a God fart?
How the hell should I know how accretion discs form?
How many trillions upon trillions of tax free loot are you going to
pay me if I objectively figure it out?
~ BG
BradGuth
> In article <11655950-bf6a-4170-acb4-7895ebd9b...@n20g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >How does all the matter end up in an accretion disc or the solar
> >plane?
>
> By now, it's clear that "BURT" or "Mitch" never learns anything. He's
> either a troll or a moron. Don't waste your time explaining things to
> him over and over again.
>
> -- Richard
> --
> Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Spoken like a devout Zionist Nazi. No wonder Eden is so screwed up.
~ BG
BradGuth
A Zionist Nazi baffoon at that.
~ BG
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Damn little, but perhaps there's an electrostatic charge of <1e12 Ev
to work with, and it helps if most of the available stuff is kind of
going along in the same orbital trek, so to speak, plus there's always
other new stuff passing through or merging.
A few billion years ago, Eden/Earth probably had 1e12 kg/year of rogue/
new stuff arriving.
You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.
~ BG
Mark Earnest
**Surely any kind of charge an atom has will not make it have any
more gravity, considering the almost total emptiness of space.
A few billion years ago, Eden/Earth probably had 1e12 kg/year of rogue/
new stuff arriving.
***It all starts as hydrogen.
You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
could be something older than our sun.
**Just because they are different intensities in heat?
**I once read that the probability of two stars converging in the
vastness of space was about that of two blind gnats colliding
in the Grand Canyon.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
How does heavy matter end up in a flat plane?
Mark Earnest
**The same way light matter ends up on a cubical one?
BradGuth
>
> You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
> could be something older than our sun.
>
> **Just because they are different intensities in heat?
No
>
> **I once read that the probability of two stars converging in the
> vastness of space was about that of two blind gnats colliding
> in the Grand Canyon.
Sirius ABC are not very far apart, or even all that far from us.
~ BG
pnal...@gmail.com
> You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
> could be something older than our sun.
************
Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
200-300 million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.
Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
the system will be perhaps something like this one;
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111
Martin Brown
No he is probably quite sincere but willfully ignorant.
This is very typical of Creationists.
Science has to fight this Creationist threat head on or we will go back
to burning astronomers for daring to say that the Earth goes round the
Sun. Proportions of creationists are appallingly high even in parts of
the UK notably Northern Ireland is 25% the average is 10% for example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2009/03/northern_ireland_is_creationis.html
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
>> Gravitational attraction of mostly neutral matter, a small amount of
>> dissipative friction and radiative cooling of the accretion disk is all
>> that is needed to allow solar systems to form and planets to condense.
>> Gravity is the weakest magnitude force but it always attracts.
>>
>> Shockwaves and excreta from nearby supernovae almost certainly played a
>> part in our solar systems formation - it contains far too much iron and
>> heavier elements to be a first generation star.
>>
>>> Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
>> You mean like you do? Superstitious cryptic "just so" stories are no
>> "explanation" of anything.
>
> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
> without some kind of help.
Gas *is* matter. The "help" it gets comes from gravity.
I take it that you are aware that the sun is just a big ball of very hot
hydrogen gas with some helium and a few other trace elements. It is held
together by gravity and prevented from collapsing by the radiation
pressure of the light it emits. The balance of these competing forces at
the surface determines its equilibrium size.
>
> If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
> why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
Superheated steam pressure and an outer skin that will resist
considerable internal overpressure before it fails catastrophically. The
hull is good for about 130psi and 180C internal temperature.
How did science education get to be so bad that there is a superstitious
Creationist mythology about the formation of popcorn?
A New Dark Ages is dawning. Science must fight this stupidity head on.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:lDQCl.103634$Yx2....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 07/04/09 09:16, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
>> It didn't "anti-dissipate".
>
> It came together, right?
> Then it must have dissipated in reverse, in other words.
Collapsed under its own weight under the influence of gravity. The same
way that Newton's apple fell to the ground instead of floating off into
space.
No need for God to empty the invisible cosmic vacuum cleaner onto the
invisible cosmic carpet to explain how our Solar system was formed.
>
>>> Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
>> Whats your "explanation"? Please don't rely on some cryptic nonsense such
>> as "a divine being did it".
>
> That is not cryptic.
The "Just so" stories of the superstitious Creationists. Unfortunately,
dumbing down is so prevalent that they are gaining ground :(
>
>
>> Incidentally does our atmosphere dissipate, or does some
>> "anti-dissipation" force keep it swirling round the earth?
>
> Earth has enough heavy elements to hold down the atmosphere.
> Deep space does not.
Hydrogen gas still has mass. Take a look at the Orion nebula for a naked
eye example of a self gravitating clump of gas where stars are forming.
In the night sky now middle of Orion's sword - easy binocular object.
http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/html/heic0601a.html
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris.Bee
wrote:
>
> How did science education get to be so bad that there is a superstitious
> Creationist mythology about the formation of popcorn?
>
> A New Dark Ages is dawning. Science must fight this stupidity head on.
>
I'll hold your coat, Sir!
Science has not provided the cosy answers which the ordinarily
superstitious man in the street needs a quick answer to for his non-
verbalised questions. Science offers only greater complexity and more
questions. Science cannot offer absolutes. Nor fast rules for a life
which often involve far more mundane problems than the scientist is
trained to solve. Science has provided very nasty weapons which nobody
likes except Southern rednecks and an even more superstitious group
called the NRA. Science puts nasty things in fluffy bunny rabbit's
eyes and sticks needles in sweet little Disney mice.
Science cannot win by demanding loyalty since it offers no club to
join. Its most eloquent spokespersons give no straight or remotely
understandable answers which can be used to win on the horses. Or lose
weight without having to stop doing something to which we are all
addicted for basic survival. Science offers no appeal to the
conscience. Nor fairy stories to send the kids to sleep. To become
popular science needs a makeover. It needs a cuddly, non-threatening
uniform and "nice people" to sell the message. Until then the
"uneducated masses" have nothing to cling to. Nothing to admire.
Nothing to pay their subs to. Nothing to look up to. Nowhere to go on
Friday night or at the weekends. Nothing to collect.
Science is everywhere but there are no designer labels to admire.
Nobody thinks about science labs when they watch their LCD TV. They
don't think about science while their computer or Xbox amuses them for
hours on end. Nobody thinks about science when their water always
comes safely out of the tap. Nor worry about where it goes afterwards.
Nobody thinks about the extraordinary amount of science behind the
scenes as they fill their cars at the gas station. Nobody thinks about
science as they try on new shoes or buy an electric bicycle, follow
their GPS to the airport or take a plane trip.
Science offers life to the sick and keeps us healthy but we don't ever
think about it unless it gets really personal. Science is invisible to
those who will not see. They think they know more than the finest
minds on the planet because they have no real knowledge except that
given to them by their priests. Or some moronic, fascist, TV
evangelist on the make. Someone who knows exactly how to sell his
snake oil dearly to the endlessly gullible, mentally handicapped
amongst us. Or worse, an immoral, knuckle dragging president who set
the world back by decades in survival terms and by several centuries
in intellectual terms. Science is like those self service bins. One
can pick and choose what you like and which to ignore and it isn't
immediately life threatening. But by god science is useful when you
want to do harm to somebody!
The problem is that science doesn't care about the ordinary person.
Most basic scientist has no immediate customers. At least none they
can recognise in the street. They may save literally billions of real
people's lives but their names are completely unknown.They cannot
compete with sports people for fame and fortune. They are no good as
pop idols because they need to work hard rather than simply entertain.
Nobody would care if they went without underwear or displayed more
than is modest on a drunken night on the town. Nobody cares if they
divorce through overwork and underpay. Nor suffer from lack of
recognition for their very doubtful talents.
Science gets a bad press more times than it is praised yet has nobody
to speak for it. Nobody to defend it. Nobody to love it or admire it.
No groupies or adoring fan clubs. Science's best sellers roll
constantly off the world's production lines but nobody is there to
hype real science for its own sake. You don't buy a scientific
experiment which went right. You buy a finished product with a name on
it. One which competes with all the other names which we
superstitiously choose to buy without the slightest understanding
behind our choices.
We are illogical beings. Science doesn't care because it is too busy
doing what it does best behind the scenes. Any Tom, Dick or Harry can
pretend to know more abut science than his pals. Which is never much
anyway. Science likes the truth but doesn't have strict rules for
blasphemy. It doesn't deliberately stone little girls to death. Nor
make death threats against those who deny its stone age heroes. It
doesn't mind being mocked because it has the truth on its side. It is
not hypersensitive to doubters because it appreciates questions which
may lead to greater understanding.
Science provides the AK47 which drives the war against education and
suppresses basic human rights. Science provides the satellite
telephones which direct ignorance and terrorism in equal measure.
Science provides the video tapes and video cameras which terrorists
use for their own ends to force ignorance deep into human society. If
the New Dark Ages are coming then science will provide the
deliberately ignorant with their tools, their communication systems
and their weapons of choice. Just as science provides the belligerent
ignoramus with his tools to spread darkness right across the Internet
today.
Jack Sprat
> How did science education get to be so bad that there is a superstitious
> Creationist mythology about the formation of popcorn?
Science education has never been very good overall.
Progress is the direct consequence of relatively small aberrations
where "gifted" teacher and student come together by happenstance. All
the rest are hobbyists.
BradGuth
So, you're another one of the ultra purest that doesn't believe
there's ever anything rogue going on, no mergers of any kind and
otherwise no cosmic interactions of any kind, and the Great Attractor
simply doesn't exist. Well, aren't you special.
~ BG
BradGuth
So, you're another one of the ultra creation and forever expansion
purest that doesn't believe there's ever anything rogue going on, no
such mergers or encounters of any importance taking place and
otherwise no significant cosmic interactions of any kind, and the
Great Attractor plus a good number of colliding galaxies simply do not
exist. Well, aren't you special.
You realize what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light
year dynamic volumetric sphere of cosmic saturated gas as of 300
million some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen that was star creation
worthy and situated right next door to our solar system, instead of
being gathered up by our nearby and well formulated tidal radius of
gravity influence, having instead independently formulated itself into
a nifty pair of truly massive stars (Sirius B of <9 solar masses and
Sirius A of <2.5 solar masses, plus having created at least a third
significant body of < 0.6 solar mass).
Did I get that right?
~ BG
Mark McIntyre
> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:lDQCl.103634$Yx2....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 07/04/09 09:16, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> No, YOU tell me how gas anti dissipated into the Solar System.
>> It didn't "anti-dissipate".
>
> It came together, right?
Uhuh.
> Then it must have dissipated in reverse, in other words.
What, you mean like steam unevaporates into water, trees ungrow their
leaves in the autumn, that sort of thing?
Suggestion: don't invent meaningless phrases in an attempt to ridicule
your opponent's argument, it merely makes your own argument weak.
>>> Don't rely on some cryptic nonsense as some kind of "explanation."
>> Whats your "explanation"? Please don't rely on some cryptic nonsense such
>> as "a divine being did it".
>
> That is not cryptic.
Cryptic: "secret or occult", "having hidden meaning".
Hmm, surely thats /precisely/ what your divine being is?
>> Incidentally does our atmosphere dissipate, or does some
>> "anti-dissipation" force keep it swirling round the earth?
>
> Earth has enough heavy elements to hold down the atmosphere.
Good - so you admit the existence of gravity.
> Deep space does not.
The solar system didn't form in "deep space", it formed in a huge cloud
of matter (gas and solid), which had a huge mass.
>> How about the moon?
>
> The Moon simply does not have sufficient gravity.
How does the moon's lack of gravity mean that it can't fly away from the
earth?
> Even scientists aren't completely wrong.
I'm glad we agree on something...
Mark McIntyre
> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:VEQCl.103640$Yx2....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 07/04/09 23:11, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
>>> without some kind of help.
>> Gas /is/ matter, and Martin already explained the "help" it was getting.
>
>
> Gas is not matter the way he was using it.
It is, and it was.
> He was using the word as some strange, eerie unexplainable phenomenon,
Nope.
> which dare not be questioned.
Nope.
> Oh no, the great gods of science have once again been offended.
Nope.
Mark McIntyre
>
> ***How much gravity is one atom every few hundred feet going to give off?
Depends where you are relative to them & how massive each atom is.
One candle won't give off much light if you're standing 100ft away.
A million candles arranged on a hillside can be seen from miles away.
And a billion could probably be seen from the moon.
Mark McIntyre
>
> How does heavy matter end up in a flat plane?
Because its spinning, and just like children on a roundabout, even if
they all start in the middle, they tend to get flung off at right-angles
to the axis of spin, rather than up or down. Or, if you want a vertical
example, mud on a car wheel.
pnal...@gmail.com
Yup, that's about right.
There is nothing special about the Sirius system, there are thousands
and thousands of others out there just like it.
Sure, rogue events might happen here and there, but these would be
mostly in globular clusters where such chance encounters would be more
likely to occur.
\Paul A
Mark McIntyre
>
> No he is probably quite sincere but willfully ignorant.
YCBR but I find it hard to believe that anyone over the age of about
five would think that popcorn was a supernatural force. :-)
> This is very typical of Creationists.
What, being childishly naive or barking mad? I disagree, many of them
are very rational sensible people who simply can't accept the idea that
the universe doesn't have a purpose.
Personally I've always harboured a suspicion that to a large extent it
is an insecurity complex. They cling to the ancient comfort blanket of
divinity because otherwise what is the point of life? My response is
"why does it need one? what's the point of sunsets, or blue, or hydrogen?".
Plus of course there's the old problem of death. Many people will deny
reality in order to avoid unpalatable truths. Look at how many people
live with abusive partners, or go along with repressive regimes, or
otherwise hide from the truth because it scares them.
BradGuth
You're talking about a sufficient volumetric cosmic gas cloud of
roughly 12+ solar masses, as happening right next door if not damn
near on top of and/or including us, and it just doesn't add up as to
why that horrific nearby amount of such charged hydrogen wasn't the
least bit attracted to our existing solar system mass of 2e30 kg.
Are you joking?
~ BG
Mark Earnest
> Mark McIntyre wrote:
>> On 07/04/09 23:11, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>
>>> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
>>> without some kind of help.
>>
>> Gas /is/ matter, and Martin already explained the "help" it was getting.
>>
>>> If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
>>> why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
>>
>> Amusing. But at least now we know you're either a blatant troll, or a
>> lunatic.
>
> No he is probably quite sincere but willfully ignorant.
> This is very typical of Creationists.
>
> Science has to fight this Creationist threat head on or we will go back to
> burning astronomers for daring to say that the Earth goes round the Sun.
> Proportions of creationists are appallingly high even in parts of the UK
> notably Northern Ireland is 25% the average is 10% for example
Science is the religion, not theism.
In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
an object in motion stays in motion.
In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that decide
if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
attempt to throw you out on your can.
Theism is just a mode of operation.
Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
Mark Earnest
***Even still, considering the vastness of space, it is exponentially
highly improbably that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
caught in each other's gravity.
Chris.Bee
>
> > Science has to fight this Creationist threat head on or we will go back to
> > burning astronomers for daring to say that the Earth goes round the Sun.
> > Proportions of creationists are appallingly high even in parts of the UK
> > notably Northern Ireland is 25% the average is 10% for example
>
> Science is the religion, not theism.
> In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
> In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
> an object in motion stays in motion.
> In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that decide
> if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
> attempt to throw you out on your can.
>
> Theism is just a mode of operation.
> Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
> get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
I'm prepared to accept that you are earnest but you can't have it both
ways. Manned vehicles are extraordinarily expensive if they are
intended to keep their occupants alive long enough to bring them back.
Satellites are almost chickenfeed by comparison and can achieve most
of what is desired. A manned mission might even be thought of as an
arrogant waste of taxpayer's money by those who prefer our limited
funds to be spent on pointless wars, subsidising industrial dinosaurs
and paying their failed director's bonuses.
Science is a far more interesting can of worms than religion because
it can learn and constantly evolves from its earlier mistakes.
Religion can do no wrong therefore it requires no such band aids to
keep up appearances. Science does not seek human victims with such
relentless fervour as its nearest competitor. Which knows its place
just well enough to seek to own the irrational fears of only those who
could never manage decent science grades. :-)
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yea but science says everything dies. I say the Spirit of God renews
everything including the Sun.
Mitch Raemsch
Sjouke Burry
Suns all over the galaxies prove that daily.
Mark Earnest
"Chris.Bee" <chr...@mail.dk> wrote in message
news:bf03143f-3b00-44b5...@a23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 8, 11:31 pm, "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Science has to fight this Creationist threat head on or we will go back
> > to
> > burning astronomers for daring to say that the Earth goes round the Sun.
> > Proportions of creationists are appallingly high even in parts of the UK
> > notably Northern Ireland is 25% the average is 10% for example
>
> Science is the religion, not theism.
> In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
> In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
> an object in motion stays in motion.
> In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that
> decide
> if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
> attempt to throw you out on your can.
>
> Theism is just a mode of operation.
> Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
> get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
I'm prepared to accept that you are earnest but you can't have it both
ways. Manned vehicles are extraordinarily expensive if they are
intended to keep their occupants alive long enough to bring them back.
**If science were not little more than a lame duck, it would be
easy to get vehicles to Mars, Venus, and even the stars themselves.
Satellites are almost chickenfeed by comparison and can achieve most
of what is desired. A manned mission might even be thought of as an
arrogant waste of taxpayer's money by those who prefer our limited
funds to be spent on pointless wars, subsidising industrial dinosaurs
and paying their failed director's bonuses.
Science is a far more interesting can of worms than religion because
it can learn and constantly evolves from its earlier mistakes.
***That is the pot calling the kettle black. Science, too, is a religion.
Religion can do no wrong therefore it requires no such band aids to
keep up appearances. Science does not seek human victims with such
relentless fervour as its nearest competitor. Which knows its place
just well enough to seek to own the irrational fears of only those who
could never manage decent science grades. :-)
***And among those that could only manage decent grades
are those that knew science for what it is: mere halfhearted attempts
at rhyming, pleasing others, and building toys for old physics professors.
Mark McIntyre
>
> Science is the religion, not theism.
This is axiomatically false, both by the definition of science, and by
the tenets of the Christian church (in particular the dogma of RC'ism).
> In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
By definition, gods are immortal and all powerful. Two of the above are
dead, the third has no illusions of immortality. At most, you can equate
the above to prophets.
> In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate, even
if you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last
year a group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message
at supralight speed. And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually
travel faster than light.
> an object in motion stays in motion.
A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.
Compare this with the Nicene Creed, which requires belief without
evidence, and the first part of the Athanasian Creed, which requires
adherence to Catholicism but offers no rationale or logic. And don't
even get me started on the mandatory seven sacraments which basically
boil down to "don't forget to tip your waiter, or verily he shall nod to
the heavies near the door".
> In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that decide
> if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
> attempt to throw you out on your can.
In /every/ sphere of human endeavour you have those who have drawn power
and influence from the status quo, and who will stop at nothing to
retain it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews,
moslems, christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and
dodos, and took fire and sword to Africa and America. Some did it in the
name of religion, some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the
name of science.
> Theism is just a mode of operation.
> Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
> get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....
Mark McIntyre
>
> Yea but science says everything dies. I say the Spirit of God renews
> everything including the Sun.
Really? Try telling that to the various novae floating around our
galaxy. Oh and by the way, the sun is measurably dying.
Mark McIntyre
>
> ***Even still, considering the vastness of space, it is exponentially
> highly improbably
Oh, you're an expert statistician are you?
Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the
probability of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect
each other?
> that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
> caught in each other's gravity.
When did anyone say that's what happened?
BradGuth
>
> > Did I get that right?
>
> > ~ BG
>
> Yup, that's about right.
>
> There is nothing special about the Sirius system, there are thousands
> and thousands of others out there just like it.
>
> Sure, rogue events might happen here and there, but these would be
> mostly in globular clusters where such chance encounters would be more
> likely to occur.
>
> \Paul A
I agree that binaries and trinaries are by far the stellar norm.
You're talking about a sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of
roughly 12.5 solar masses, as happening right next door if not damn
near on top of and/or easily including us, and it just doesn't add up
as to why that horrific nearby amount of such charged hydrogen wasn't
the least bit attracted to our pre-existing solar system mass of 2e30
kg. I mean to ask, what the hell was wrong with all of that
hydrogen? And why didn’t we get our fair share?
In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3, though
actually it’s of much less cosmic ISM density because of being hot as
hell, so let us make it worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a
hydrogen populated sphere of 18.5 light years diameter.
Were we actually that close to such a complex stellar birth as of 300
million years ago, and somehow remained unaffected?
However, it seems those "rogue events might happen here and there" are
not so unlikely, especially when there are mutual tidal radius factors
taken into account.
What might happen, for whatever the reason, if Sirius ABC were to
combine?
~ BG
BradGuth
Except that it seems to happen all the time. How many thousand images
from public accessible archives would you care to obfuscate and/or
apply denial?
How about, do you not believe The Great Attractor is real?
~ BG
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> Science is the religion, not theism.
>
> This is axiomatically false, both by the definition of science, and by the
> tenets of the Christian church (in particular the dogma of RC'ism).
>
>> In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
>
> By definition, gods are immortal and all powerful. Two of the above are
> dead, the third has no illusions of immortality. At most, you can equate
> the above to prophets.
>
>> In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
>
> That's a theory. And actually, its no longer regarded as accurate, even if
> you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last year a
> group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
> supralight speed. And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually travel
> faster than light.
That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
hit in the face with it.
>
>> an object in motion stays in motion.
>
> A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.
Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.
>
> Compare this with the Nicene Creed, which requires belief without
> evidence, and the first part of the Athanasian Creed, which requires
> adherence to Catholicism but offers no rationale or logic. And don't even
> get me started on the mandatory seven sacraments which basically boil down
> to "don't forget to tip your waiter, or verily he shall nod to the heavies
> near the door".
I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.
>
>> In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that
>> decide
>> if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
>> attempt to throw you out on your can.
>
> In /every/ sphere of human endeavour you have those who have drawn power
> and influence from the status quo, and who will stop at nothing to retain
> it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews, moslems,
> christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and dodos, and took
> fire and sword to Africa and America. Some did it in the name of religion,
> some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.
Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
go "peruse the journals."
With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never get
anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
not think exactly as they do.
That is why today's science sucks.
>
>> Theism is just a mode of operation.
>> Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
>> get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
>
> Apart of course from the Voyager probes, MER, Cassini....
We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 08/04/09 22:33, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> ***Even still, considering the vastness of space, it is exponentially
>> highly improbably
>
> Oh, you're an expert statistician are you?
The mind is capable of extraordinary statistics if you only give it a
chance.
Just apply a little imagination and watch it go.
>
> Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
> moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the probability
> of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect each other?
Not much, seeing as the stars are moving so very, very slow.
Notice that the Big Dipper is still the Big Dipper thousands of years
after it was first recorded.
>
>> that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
>> caught in each other's gravity.
>
> When did anyone say that's what happened?
I thought Brad was saying that, when he was describing the different colors
of the stars of Sirius.
Mark Earnest
**Why peruse musical journasl when you are considering botany?
How about, do you not believe The Great Attractor is real?
**Sounds about as real as anything else I've heard from this quadrant.
BradGuth
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
If one of our probes bumps into an ET, our job is essentially done.
Sending out a million probes rather than one, improves our odds by
1e6:1 in favor of making contact.
~ BG
BradGuth
Indeed, "The Great Attractor" is quite real, as well as being very
upsetting to the Big Bang mindset.
~ BG
Mark Earnest
Why is NASA sending out probes to find E.T.'s, anyway?
Before launching Voyager, they should have surmised that
if E.T. were smart enough to come to it, they would surely be
smart enough to come all the way here, to Earth.
Androcles
"Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vsWdnSLCaZY-7EDU...@posted.internetamerica...
cable
to broadcast his TV and saving us the trouble of searching for him
with radio telescopes and setting up organisations called SETI, the
Search for Extra Terrestrial stupIdity. On the other hand he could be
as dumb as Carl Sagan was.
Martin Brown
> "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:DQZCl.30914$0%2.6...@newsfe22.iad...
>> Mark McIntyre wrote:
>>> On 07/04/09 23:11, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>> It isn't "matter" that coalesced, it is gas, and gas does not coalesce
>>>> without some kind of help.
>>> Gas /is/ matter, and Martin already explained the "help" it was getting.
>>>
>>>> If you don't know about the supernatural, then you don't know
>>>> why under the correct conditions, corn turns inside out to form popcorn.
>>> Amusing. But at least now we know you're either a blatant troll, or a
>>> lunatic.
>> No he is probably quite sincere but willfully ignorant.
>> This is very typical of Creationists.
>>
>> Science has to fight this Creationist threat head on or we will go back to
>> burning astronomers for daring to say that the Earth goes round the Sun.
>> Proportions of creationists are appallingly high even in parts of the UK
>> notably Northern Ireland is 25% the average is 10% for example
>
> Science is the religion, not theism.
Not at all. Science is a methodology for testing what we think we know
about how the universe works by constructing theoretical models and
*testing* them against what actually happens in the real world.
Scientists are always looking for the next experiment that tests to
breaking point the existing world model. The photo-electric effect and
the Michelson-Morley ether drift experiments are good examples.
> In science you have the gods, Newton, Einstein, Hawking...
And there will be others who become famous in the future for improving
on the works of their predecessors. We are not wedded to a literal
interpretation of a particular English translation of an old book.
> In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
No information can be transferred faster than light.
And the speed of light is a practical barrier for all particle
accelerators. The particles can be given more energy, but they never go
faster than c in a vacuum. And in a refractive medium a massive charged
particle can travel faster than the local speed of light leaving
Cherenkov radiation in its wake. Wiki has a nice article on it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cerenkov_radiation
It also fits very nicely with Maxwell's equations and every experimental
test so far has been entirely consistent with SR and GR. There may be a
more complete theory, but until someone finds an experiment where GR
fails to predict the right outcome it is about as good as it gets.
Lets see your deity do any better!
> an object in motion stays in motion.
Conservation laws are about the most general and powerful rules of the
universe that there are. The general relativity versions seem to hold
valid even in the most extreme cases of binary pulsars.
> In science you have the pompous highly robed and tassled bishops that decide
> if you are a heretic to the scientific faith or not, and if you are,
> attempt to throw you out on your can.
You are drooling uncontrollably here. It is the established church that
has forever tried to keep the population ignorant and fearful. The
modern equivalent of medieval indulgences is the tele-Evangelist with
his "Gimme your money and I will sin for you". They are so funny!
>
> Theism is just a mode of operation.
"Just so" stories promising eternal life and jam tomorrow to the poor so
that they will follow their King, "Gods appointed ruler" into battle.
> Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
> get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
That is a policy decision I happen to agree with.
I don't see the point in sending men to the moon, Mars or to sit in that
useless boondoggle the ISS for that matter. Unless and until we find
something that our robotic systems cannot do. The robotic Mars explorers
are still working very nicely long after their design lifetime.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Androcles
Yeah, yeah, and chant "Einstein akbar" while you are at it,
you religious dork.
Martin Brown
> On 08/04/09 22:31, Mark Earnest wrote:
> retain it. Such men burned catholics and protestants, massacred jews,
> moslems, christians, russians, scots, indians (of all flavours) and
> dodos, and took fire and sword to Africa and America.
The dodo's biggest problem was that it was big, tasted really good and
wasn't afraid of man. It would be worth trying to replicate its DNA from
museum specimens when our technology is up to the task.
Different brands of Christianity have been at each others throats for
many centuries, and they still are in Northern Ireland. Odd when they
claim to worship the same nominal deity.
A minimalist mathematical religion requires just two founding axioms:
Proposition 1: All non-believers will burn eternally in hell fire.
Proposition 2: True believers must minimise the suffering of others.
You can quickly get from these axioms to accepting that any finite
amount of suffering and torture to save eternal souls is entirely
justified. Summed up as "the ends justify the means". Typical examples
being the inquisition and various other religious zealots.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:qJaDl.99100$UQ6....@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com...
>> you add the words "in a vacuum" and "with mass". For instance last year a
>> group of scientists used quantum entanglement to send a message at
>> supralight speed.
Unclear whether that is truly what it means though. Interpretation of
quantum entanglement experiments is still an area of active research.
>>And interestingly, the humble shadow can actually travel
>> faster than light.
The cutest one is monochromatic sodium light passing through sodium
vapour. You can see the light bend so you know that the wavecrests are
genuinely travelling faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The
problem is that as soon as you try to modulate a signal onto the
wavetrain it is no longer monochromatic and the signal is scrambled by
the extremely dispersive medium. The same happens in waveguides. It is a
due to a subtle distinction between phase and group velocity.
>
> That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
It has never been demonstrated to be incorrect.
> I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
> hit in the face with it.
So show us you faster than light device then.
>>> an object in motion stays in motion.
>> A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.
>
> Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.
No. Mathematics exists completely outside of science as a discipline in
its own right. The Axioms of mathematics and rules of logic can be used
to construct exact formal proofs. If the mathematics happens to describe
how the universe works then that is a bonus.
Science tests mathematical models of the universe against reality.
> Yes, they do. I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
> in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
> orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
> go "peruse the journals."
I am not surprised. YOU ARE BARKING MAD.
>
> With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never get
> anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
> not think exactly as they do.
>
> That is why today's science sucks.
ROFL. Lets see your FTL drive then.
Regards,
Martin Brown
The Stainless Steel Cat
"Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
>get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
No, that's engineering and economics you're thinking of there.
Cat.
Androcles
"The Stainless Steel Cat" <catof...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:C6037C569...@192.168.0.2...
Engineering is religious fanaticism? Well, coming from a steel cat
we shouldn't be surprised at that remark...
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
Martin Brown
>> Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> In science you have the creed: Nothing goes faster than light,
>> No information can be transferred faster than light.
>
> Yeah, yeah, and chant "Einstein akbar" while you are at it,
> you religious dork.
Oh dear. Has nasty Mr Punch hit one of Androcles sock puppets over the
head again. What a shame....
Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!
Regards,
Martin Brown
Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
than light then, religious fanatic!
Can't huh? What a fucking shame, you are caught bullshitting after
praying to St. Einstein in whom you devoutly believe, cretin.
Mark McIntyre
>
> That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
the next person of doing a web-search.
> I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
> hit in the face with it.
Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?
Pharmacists? Science is an enormous field and just like I have no idea
what the laws are governing molecular biology, I wouldn't expect a
chemist to know the detail of relativity or quantum mech.
And furthermore: we're surrounded by scientific theories which are
regarded as "laws of physics" by laypeople and those whose experience
isn't in the right field. That's a matter of convenience, not fact.
Newton's laws are wrong - but mostly they're good enough to be
considered as laws. General relativity is a theory which fits most known
pertinent observations - but its still a theory.
>>> an object in motion stays in motion.
>> A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.
>
> Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.
The classic response - deny the supplementary proof exists.
By the way, maths isn't a science. Applied Maths is a tool used by
scientists. Pure Maths is a form of philosophy. See Popper et al.
> I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.
Again definitionally, religion is organized theism.
>> some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.
>
> Yes, they do.
Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.
> I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
> in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics of
> orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
> go "peruse the journals."
If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
who will read it and point out any issues for you.
However given the ignorance you've displayed of orbital mechanics,
momentum and stellar physics, and given the disdain you've shown for
maths, many will start from a sceptical point of view.
> With that kind of an attitude, the type of the religious, we will never get
> anywhere. All they want to do is look down their noses at people that do
> not think exactly as they do.
No, all they want to do is stop you making a terrible fool of yourself
by publishing patently incorrect and nonsensical research.
> That is why today's science sucks.
What you seem to be saying is "the critics panned my work, so I hate
them all".
> We are talking getting man to the stars, not probes which hardly count.
Ever heard of "walk before you run" ?
And at least you admit you were wrong.
Mark McIntyre
(I wrote)
>> Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
>> moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the probability
>> of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect each other?
>
> Not much,
Provide the stats please.
> seeing as the stars are moving so very, very slow.
Er... the sun is travelling at about 500,000 miles an hour.
> Notice that the Big Dipper is still the Big Dipper thousands of years
> after it was first recorded.
Cluefest: thousands is much smaller than billions.
And actually, its shape has changed quite a bit. 50,000 years ago it
looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.
>>> that stars just ventured anywhere near each other and got
>>> caught in each other's gravity.
>> When did anyone say that's what happened?
>
> I thought Brad was saying that,
Brad is a well-known troll and knows nothing about anything.
Mark McIntyre
> No information can be transferred faster than light.
Actually, that's not true. There was an article in Nature last year
about a successful QE experiment which transmitted information FTL.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/abs/nature07121.html
If I remember correctly, the information was transferred at about
10,000x the speed of light in a vacuum.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Mark McIntyre
> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>>
> Sure...
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.
> Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
> than light then, religious fanatic!
Martin is a little out of date, is all.
Mark McIntyre
> Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
> you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
> unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
> subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
> you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
> aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
If your message were genuinely automated, it'd be busy sending yourself
the same message....
Martin Brown
> On 09/04/09 08:36, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> No information can be transferred faster than light.
>
> Actually, that's not true. There was an article in Nature last year
> about a successful QE experiment which transmitted information FTL.
>
> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7206/abs/nature07121.html
>
> If I remember correctly, the information was transferred at about
> 10,000x the speed of light in a vacuum.
The collapse of the entangled wavefunction gave a correlation
measurement that is consistent with very fast, quite possibly infinite
speed action at a distance. That is more likely to indicate that the
intersection of quantum mechanics, the Bell inequality and special
relativity is incompletely described by current theory.
The full article is online at arXiv without paying Natures extortionate
fees.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0808/0808.3316v1.pdf
It is an elegant and interesting new test on a tricky area of QM. Thanks
for pointing it out.
But it still doesn't allow you to send a message at faster than light
speed. The "information" being shared by the photons is beyond our control.
Quoting from their paper on page 2 para 1
"In both of these analyses we termed the hypothetical supra-luminal
influence, the speed of quantum information, to stress that it is not a
classical signaling. We shall keep this terminology, but we like
to emphasize that this is only the speed of a hypothetical influence and
that our result casts very serious doubts on its existence."
Newton required gravity with infinite speed action at a distance to have
stable orbits around the sun. He wasn't keen on it either, but it took a
long while before a new more complete theory could solve the puzzle.
Regards,
Martin Brown
BradGuth
> How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?
>
> How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
> plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?
>
> There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
> for the order of the solar system we now see?
>
> Nobody can do it. And never will.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Here’s my revised/updated reply to Paul A (pnals), as being our
resident diehard anti-revisionist.
On Apr 7, 11:07 pm, pnals...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 7, 5:58 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You do realize that Sirius A is a fairly new star, and that Sirius B
> > could be something older than our sun.
>
> ************
>
> Well, this statement is nonsense. Sirius A & B are a physical pair,
> they orbit each other, and this means that in all probability they
> were born at about the same time. This system is approximately
> 200-300 million years old, which is very young in astronomical terms,
> and much younger than our sun, which is about 5 billion years old.
>
> Interestingly, Sirius B was once the larger and probably brighter of
> the two, but this meant that it evolved faster and today has already
> proceeded to the white dwarf stage, whereas Sirius A is still in the
> prime of its life. Eventually it, too, will become a white dwarf and
> the system will be perhaps something like this one;
>
> http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=18718111
So, you're another one of the ultra creation and forever expansion
purest at heart, that doesn't believe there's ever anything rogue
going on, no such mergers or encounters of any importance taking place
and otherwise no significant cosmic interactions of any kind, and the
Great Attractor plus a good number of colliding galaxies simply do not
exist. Well, aren't you special.
>
> There is nothing special about the Sirius system, there are thousands
> and thousands of others out there just like it.
>
> Sure, rogue events might happen here and there, but these would be
> mostly in globular clusters where such chance encounters would be more
> likely to occur.
>
> \Paul A
You realize what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light
year, highly dynamic and hugely volumetric sphere of sufficient cosmic
saturated gas as of 300 million some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen
and otherwise helium that was sufficiently star creation worthy, and
situated right next door to our solar system, whereas instead of being
gathered up by our nearby and well formulated tidal radius of gravity
influence, having instead independently formulated itself into a nifty
pair of truly massive stars (Sirius B of <9 solar masses and Sirius A
of <2.5 solar masses, plus having created at least a third significant
body of <.06 solar mass as Sirius C).
Did I get that right?
Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
been closer as of 300 million years ago, you're talking about a
sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of roughly 12.5 solar
masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), as happening right next
door if not damn near on top of and/or easily including us, and it
just doesn't add up as to why that horrific nearby amount of such
electric charged hydrogen wasn't the least bit attracted to our pre-
existing solar system mass of 2e30 kg. I mean to ask, what the hell
was wrong with all of that available hydrogen and helium? And why
didn’t we get our fair share?
In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar molecular hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3,
though actually it’s of less cosmic ISM density because of such gas
being hot as hell and being continually tidal force pulled apart by
the gravity other nearby stars (such as our sun), so let us make it
worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a gaseous populated
sphere of 18.5 light years diameter at 100% stellar formation
efficiency, and since we can safely say this star creating process is
never that good, so perhaps 33,000 ly3 as a collective gravitational
collapse worthy sphere of 40 ly is more like it. The “Jeans Mass” for
accommodating a sufficient “triggered star formation” is suggesting
much greater solar mass ratios of at least 1000:1 required for the
accretion process, of which puts us smack within the center realm of
whatever culmination of matter and events created Sirius ABC, making
us very much a part of the same stellar formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius
going red-giant postal on us, and yet somehow we remained unaffected?
(\Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)
Perhaps if something of mass were to merge into a sufficient molecular
cloud of hydrogen and helium, such as a brown dwarf of 10~100 Jm, or
possibly a small antimatter black hole could have been the stellar
seed, but perhaps that kind of reverse or anti-nova too should have
affected our solar system that was likely situated within the same
molecular cloud.
Within many complex theories to pick from <http://
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp>, supposedly the final
straw of our dinosaur extinction process took place as of merely 65
million years ago, of which seems to suggest the nearby red-giant and
subsequent slow nova of Sirius B (our second sun) becoming a white
dwarf and having lost its tidal radius grip on whatever planets,
planetoids and moons would have been a most likely contributor of this
otherwise robust biodiversity demise. Clearly no one cosmic and/or
terrestrial event caused the great extinction process, although
physical impacts from the sudden demise of the Sirius B solar system
(perhaps including our obtaining and icy Selene as our moon) would
certainly have finished off most of whatever was left of such life on
Earth.
Of course, here in Google Groups (Usenet/newsgroups) land of mostly
insurmountable naysayism, obfuscation, denial and above all anti-
revision mindsets, you’d think there would be a little room for the
give and take of fresh ideas, especially since so much of astrophysics
upon what we thought we knew has been recently tossed out the
proverbial window. Meanwhile, the most vibrant and interesting star
system that’s situated right next to us remains as oddly taboo/
nondisclosure rated, as though our NASA had once landed on it, or that
it’s hiding OBL plus all of those Muslim WMD along with all of those
SEC red-flag reports that were never acted upon.
~ BG
Mark McIntyre
> The full article is online at arXiv without paying Natures extortionate
> fees.
I have a subscription courtesy of my missus' job... :-)
> But it still doesn't allow you to send a message at faster than light
> speed. The "information" being shared by the photons is beyond our control.
Ah, but then I didn't say "send a message", I said "transfer
information". And I suspect the former is only a matter of time. I
recall various 19th century scientists saying that electricity was an
interesting but useless curiosity, or that someone travelling faster
than 10mph would be suffocated due to lack of air.
> Newton required gravity with infinite speed action at a distance to have
> stable orbits around the sun. He wasn't keen on it either, but it took a
> long while before a new more complete theory could solve the puzzle.
Quite. Certainly one day, probably quite soon, something will clarify
our understanding one way or the other. Till then I'm content to wait
and see - but my sense of historical perspective suggests to me that
whatever we currently consider impossible may one day turn out to be
possible after all.
BradGuth
wrote:
The quantum transfer of information at FTL should become doable on the
interstellar scale. We're just too stuck in our own mainstream
obfuscation and perpetual denial to appreciate the quantum FTL
possibilities.
For each and every new and/or improved interpretation that could lead
us down a correct path, there are at least a thousand nasty gauntlets
of insurmountable mindsets (many of them faith-based) to overcome.
It's as though we're breaking some kind of God posted speed limit, and
the cost of that speeding ticket is worth more than all the tea in
China, so to speak.
~ BG
Androcles
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!
>>>
>> Sure...
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
>
> This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.
More than that, you can change the parameters yourself.
It adds the speed of light to the speed of the source moving in
a Keplerian orbit and out pops the light curves of Algol, delta-Cepheus,
V 1493 Aql and many others, all done by mathemagic.
Real data that can't be modelled by your only-one-speed-of-light-allowed
religion.
Your conventional explanation:
Algol -- eclipsed by a "dark" star.
delta-Cepheus -- a huff puff star that thinks its a blow fish.
V 1493 Aql - blows itself to smithereens twice in 3 months, settles
back to normal.
Of course, they a just are bunch of stars, not worth looking at when
you have the shining light of the brilliant Einstein telling you what to
think.
>> Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
>> than light then, religious fanatic!
>
> Martin is a little out of date, is all.
Martin is a faithful follower of the gospel according to Rabbi Saint
Einstein
the Divine and a fantasizing fuckwit; you are years out of date.
Androcles
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting free advertising, because
you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the
aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
BradGuth
> "Mark McIntyre" <markmcint...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
>
> news:WlmDl.153469$PS5....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> > On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
>
> >>> Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!
>
> >> Sure...
> >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
>
> > This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.
>
> More than that, you can change the parameters yourself.
> It adds the speed of light to the speed of the source moving in
> a Keplerian orbit and out pops the light curves of Algol, delta-Cepheus,
> V 1493 Aql and many others, all done by mathemagic.
> Real data that can't be modelled by your only-one-speed-of-light-allowed
> religion.
> Your conventional explanation:
> Algol -- eclipsed by a "dark" star.
> delta-Cepheus -- a huff puff star that thinks its a blow fish.
> V 1493 Aql - blows itself to smithereens twice in 3 months, settles
> back to normal.
>
> Of course, they a just are bunch of stars, not worth looking at when
> you have the shining light of the brilliant Einstein telling you what to
> think.
>
> >> Now show your evidence that no information can be transferred faster
> >> than light then, religious fanatic!
>
> > Martin is a little out of date, is all.
>
> Martin is a faithful follower of the gospel according to Rabbi Saint
> Einstein
> the Divine and a fantasizing fuckwit; you are years out of date.
Quantum FTL travel should become a reality, if not existing as is
before so many dumbfounded eyes. However, if mainstream folks simply
can't think outside of their Einstein box, then perhaps only a black
hole will give such mindset souls what they desire.
~ BG
Mark Earnest
"Androcles" <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:BrhDl.17449$Y12....@newsfe25.ams2...
E.T. may indeed be smart, but that may not have occured to him.
And how would he know about SETI if he was still on his planet back home?
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 09/04/09 02:20, Mark Earnest wrote:
> (I wrote)
>>> Question: if there are a billion moving objects in a galaxy-sized space
>>> moving in random directions for ten billion years, what is the
>>> probability
>>> of two of them passing near enough to gravitationally affect each other?
>>
>> Not much,
>
> Provide the stats please.
I just did.
>
>> seeing as the stars are moving so very, very slow.
>
> Er... the sun is travelling at about 500,000 miles an hour.
You know nothing about relativity then. Stars aren't moving at all,
until you compare their state to that of something else.
>
>> Notice that the Big Dipper is still the Big Dipper thousands of years
>> after it was first recorded.
>
> Cluefest: thousands is much smaller than billions.
Who cares? It makes the point.
>
> And actually, its shape has changed quite a bit. 50,000 years ago it
> looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
> paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.
That still shows stars as moving pretty darned slow.
Mark McIntyre
> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:WlmDl.153469$PS5....@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 09/04/09 12:12, Androcles wrote:
>>> "Martin Brown"<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> Show us your FTL spaceship then fantasy boy!
>>>>
>>> Sure...
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lightcurve.xls
>> This shows a bunch of pretty drawings of curves.
>
> More than that, you can change the parameters yourself.
> It adds the speed of light to the speed of the source moving in
> a Keplerian orbit
Using newtonian mechanics.
> and out pops the light curves of Algol, delta-Cepheus,
> V 1493 Aql and many others, all done by mathemagic.
All done by randomness. I've taken another look at your spreadsheet, and
all I can see is a bunch of inconsistent equations which have been
manipulated and adjusted till they give a shape approximating to the
light curve of a couple of eclipsing binaries. I could write a thousand
spreadsheets to generate the same shape, all using various dotty
aggregations of measurable phenomena. They're share one thing in common
- a failure to apply Occam's Razor and at least one bit of broken maths.
I'll leave it for you to work out where yours is. Clue: if the change in
luminosity were due to orbital mechanics, it would change smoothly and
by a much smaller amount. Your excessive use of Mod has blown you up.
But... you're claiming that the orbital motion of the star (about what?)
causes its light curve? Ok, it should be easy for you to prove - just
show that the photons coming from any one of these stars are moving at
the speed your model predicts.
> Real data
You're claiming your spreadsheet is real data? ????
> that can't be modelled by your only-one-speed-of-light-allowed
> religion.
And yet, below your post you actually showed the explanations.... how
can there be no explanation, if there is one?
Just out of interest why do you think your explanation is more plausible
than the conventional one? Take Algol for a starting point.
> Of course, they a just are bunch of stars, not worth looking at when
> you have the shining light of the brilliant Einstein telling you what to
> think.
I think for myself thanks.
>> Martin is a little out of date, is all.
>
> Martin is a faithful follower of the gospel according to Rabbi Saint
> Einstein
No, he's merely a little out of date.
You on the other hand are, as ford prefect would say of the
golgafrincham B-Arkers, a loony.
Mark McIntyre
> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
>> If your message were genuinely automated, it'd be busy sending yourself
>> the same message....
>
> *plonk*
The classic response. Rather than face reality, he hides away, denies it
exists, sticks his fingers in his ears and hums...
Mark McIntyre
>
> that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
> or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have that nearly right. In your case you will probably find it a
blessing that they don't have to read rebuttals of your crackpot
theories, because it means you can carry on ignoring reality.
On the other hand, plonking me won't stop me rebutting you, pointing out
the errors in your posts and so forth. You won't see them - but the rest
of the world will.
Mark McIntyre
> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
>
>> looked more like a kite. There are early chinese paintings and even cave
>> paintings from 10,000 yrs ago showing it looking different to today.
>
> That still shows stars as moving pretty darned slow.
Huh? In 0.00000003% of the life of the universe, they will completely
change position and won't look anything like they do today. And you
think its slow?
Stop thinking in human terms. The galaxy is on a rather grander scale
than puny humanity.
Androcles
E.T. would not know, I was being facetious.
If we assume E.T. is intelligent then it would be foolish of him to announce
his presence to a species of great ape hell-bent on destruction of all life
on
our own planet, including himself. Man is quite unable to control his own
population growth which is doubling every 33 years, constantly at war with
his fellows in competition for available resources and would be seen by E.T.
as a dangerous disease to be eradicated before it spreads beyond its
present containment. In another century the world population will be EIGHT
times what it is at present, East will battle West for arable land, there
will
be mass starvation and nobody is even aware of the problem, let alone
doing anything about it. That is hardly intelligent. You'd better hope
E.T. isn't out there because if he is he ain't letting us out of our own
Solar
System, we are lethal and we've already told him where we are. What he
makes of our fictional horror films and real war footage I shudder to think,
but we've already transmitted them.
BradGuth
> "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:AsOdnfQLF9f2o0PU...@posted.internetamerica...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
> >news:BrhDl.17449$Y12....@newsfe25.ams2...
>
> >> "Mark Earnest" <gmearn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>news:vsWdnSLCaZY-7EDU...@posted.internetamerica...
>
> >>> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That's very true, as the one frail species of rather poorly evolved
life which Eden/Earth could most easily do a whole lot better without,
is us humans.
Perhaps ETs will see this planet as a cosmic form of a 4H sponsored
salvation contest, that can be taken to their cosmic fair as a show
and tell of what the hell not to do, unless you intended to destroy an
entire ecosystem and subsequently make life for humans next to
impossible.
~ BG
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 09/04/09 02:14, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>
>> That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
>
> No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
> the next person of doing a web-search.
Scientists may say it is theory. But they still inadvertantly treat it as
fact.
Tell them you can go faster than 186, 000 miles per second, and you will see
what I mean.
>
>> I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
>> hit in the face with it.
>
> Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?
The scientists as NASA.
> Pharmacists? Science is an enormous field and just like I have no idea
> what the laws are governing molecular biology, I wouldn't expect a chemist
> to know the detail of relativity or quantum mech.
>
> And furthermore: we're surrounded by scientific theories which are
> regarded as "laws of physics" by laypeople and those whose experience
> isn't in the right field. That's a matter of convenience, not fact.
> Newton's laws are wrong - but mostly they're good enough to be considered
> as laws. General relativity is a theory which fits most known pertinent
> observations - but its still a theory.
>
>
>>>> an object in motion stays in motion.
>>> A theory based on observation and backed up by maths.
>>
>> Sure, math is just a part of science, so that means nothing at all.
>
> The classic response - deny the supplementary proof exists.
>
> By the way, maths isn't a science. Applied Maths is a tool used by
> scientists. Pure Maths is a form of philosophy. See Popper et al.
>
>> I have nothing to do with religion in the name of theism, either.
>
> Again definitionally, religion is organized theism.
>
>>> some in the name of commerce. Damn few did it in the name of science.
>>
>> Yes, they do.
>
> Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
> or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.
Christians may have indeed burned scientists, but scientists do not exactly
have clean hands either, considering how they close doors on mankind, such
as the door to interstellar and intergalactic space travel.
>
>> I tried to tell scientists how we can get to Alpha Centauri
>> in less than a month, with modern technology, proving it by the physics
>> of
>> orbital mechanics, and the pompous religious scholars just told me to
>> go "peruse the journals."
>
> If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
> published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
> who will read it and point out any issues for you.
No, you and the rest here are too stupid too understand it, so I won't
waste my time.
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
Don't you remember what this thread was even about?
It was about the stars of Sirius being captured by each other, and the fact
that the stars surely formed together rather than being captured by one of
their gravity. We were already on a grand scale.
pnal...@gmail.com
> You realize what you are saying is that a truly horrific multi light
> year, highly dynamic and hugely volumetric sphere of sufficient cosmic
> saturated gas as of 300 million some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen
> and otherwise helium that was sufficiently star creation worthy, and
> situated right next door to our solar system, whereas instead of being
> gathered up by our nearby and well formulated tidal radius of gravity
> influence, having instead independently formulated itself into a nifty
> pair of truly massive stars (Sirius B of <9 solar masses and Sirius A
> of <2.5 solar masses, plus having created at least a third significant
> body of <.06 solar mass as Sirius C).
>
> Did I get that right?
>
> Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
> been closer as of 300 million years ago, you're talking about a
> sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of roughly 12.5 solar
> masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), as happening right next
> door if not damn near on top of and/or easily including us, and it
> just doesn't add up as to why that horrific nearby amount of such
> electric charged hydrogen wasn't the least bit attracted to our pre-
> existing solar system mass of 2e30 kg. I mean to ask, what the hell
> was wrong with all of that available hydrogen and helium? And why
> didn’t we get our fair share?
> Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
> stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius
> going red-giant postal on us, and yet somehow we remained unaffected?
> (\Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)
>
**************
Boy, you sure can go on and on about things you know absolutely
nothing about.
Sirius and its single companion are approaching earth at about 19 km/
sec, and in 200K years they will be making their closest approach to
earth. Doing the simple math, when that system formed it was over 200
light years away from the solar system. It did NOT form anywhere near
the earth. Take a class, or do some worthy research before putting
your mouth in gear.
By the way, it is very doubtful that this system contains a "C"
component. Many have searched for it and all have failed, including
Hubble. It is just not there. Here is my reference;
http://www.solstation.com/stars/sirius2.htm
Where is yours?
\Paul A
BradGuth
> How do accretion discs form in a flat plane around a star?
>
> How does the gravitational order bring matter together in the solar
> plane. How then does this matter proceed to become planets?
>
> There were trillions of lumps of matter. How did they come together
> for the order of the solar system we now see?
>
> Nobody can do it. And never will.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
Mitch, never say never, because it just pisses folks off, and I'd bet
God too. There are perhaps at least a dozen primary causes that
produced our universe. Your God was a very busy boy or gal, and for
quite some time none the less. Seems it would have been a whole lot
easier to just sit back and let shit happen, then come back in and try
making sense out of 0.00001% of it.
Here’s my revised/updated reply to Paul A (pnals), as being another
one of our resident diehard anti-revisionist, plus this is for anyone
else without an original deductive thought or a lose cannon to his/her
name.
Ø \Paul A
I’ve always agreed that binary and even trinary star systems are
pretty much the cosmic norm. However, you realize what you are saying
is that a truly horrific multi light year, highly dynamic and hugely
volumetric sphere of sufficient cosmic saturated gas as of 300 million
some odd years ago, of mostly hydrogen and otherwise helium that was
sufficiently star creation worthy, and situated right next door to our
solar system, whereas instead of being gathered up by our nearby and
well formulated tidal radius of gravity influence, having instead
independently formulated itself into a nifty pair of truly massive
stars (Sirius B of <9 solar masses and Sirius A of <2.5 solar masses,
plus having created at least a third significant body of <.06 solar
mass as Sirius C).
Did I get that right?
Considering everything about our universe and local galaxy had to have
been more compact and otherwise closer as of 300 million years ago,
you're talking about a sufficient volumetric cosmic gaseous cloud of
roughly 12.5 solar masses (assuming 100% combining efficiency), as
happening right next door if not damn near on top of and/or easily
including us, and it just doesn't add up as to why that horrific
nearby amount of such electric charged hydrogen wasn't the least bit
attracted to our pre-existing solar system mass of 2e30 kg. I mean to
ask, what the hell was wrong with all of that available hydrogen and
helium? And why didn’t we get our fair share if we were here first?
In order to muster up 25e30 kg, that’s only 330 cubic light years of
1e-18 bar molecular hydrogen that’s supposedly worth 0.0899e-18 kg/m3,
though actually it’s of less cosmic ISM density because of such gas
being hot as hell and being continually tidal force pulled apart or
diverted by the gravity other nearby stars (such as our sun), so let
us make it worthy of at least 3300 ly3, and that’s only a gaseous
populated sphere of 18.5 light years diameter at 100% stellar
formation efficiency, and since we can safely say this star creating
process is never that good, so perhaps 33,000 ly3 as a collective
gravitational collapse worthy sphere of 40 ly is more like it. The
“Jeans Mass” for accommodating a sufficient “triggered star formation”
is suggesting much greater solar mass ratios of at least 1000:1
required for the accretion process, of which puts us smack within the
center realm of whatever culmination of matter and events created
Sirius ABC, making us very much a part of the same stellar formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_formation
Were we actually that close to such a complex and absolutely vibrant
stellar birth as of 300 million years ago, plus then having Sirius B
going red-giant postal on us, and yet somehow we remained unaffected?
(\Paul A, are you otherwise joking?)
Perhaps if something of mass were to merge into a sufficient molecular
cloud of mostly hydrogen and helium that would have easily included
our solar system, such as a brown dwarf of 10~100 Jm, or possibly a
small antimatter black hole could have been the stellar seed, but
perhaps that kind of reverse-nova or anti-nova too should have
adversely affected our solar system that was likely situated within
the same molecular cloud.
Within many complex theories to pick from <http://
www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i2/dinosaur.asp>, supposedly the final
straw of our dinosaur extinction process took place as of merely 65
million years ago, of which seems to suggest the nearby red-giant and
subsequent slow nova of Sirius B (our second sun) becoming a white
dwarf and having lost its tidal radius grip on whatever planets,
planetoids and moons would have been a most likely contributor of this
otherwise robust biodiversity demise that should have otherwise stood
the test of time. Clearly no one cosmic and/or terrestrial event
caused the great extinction process, although physical impacts derived
from the sudden demise of the Sirius B solar system (perhaps including
our obtaining and icy Selene as our moon) would certainly have
finished off most of whatever was left of such life on Earth.
Of course, here in Google Groups (Usenet/newsgroups) land of mostly
insurmountable naysayism, obfuscation, denial and above all
consistently anti-revision mindsets, you’d think there would be a
little room for the give and take of fresh ideas, especially since so
much of astrophysics upon what we thought we knew has been recently
tossed out the proverbial window. Meanwhile, the most vibrant and
interesting star system that’s situated right next to us remains as
oddly taboo/nondisclosure rated, as though our NASA had once landed on
it, or that it’s hiding OBL plus all of those Muslim WMD along with
all of those SEC red-flag reports that were never acted upon, and of
course those 700 large and clearly marked NASA/Apollo boxes of mission
related R&D plus critical systems and science data that seemed to
vanish into thin air.
Btw, I find that creation, intelligent design and natural evolution
can safely coexist most anywhere, except here on Eden/Earth.
~ BG
Mark McIntyre
> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:YxlDl.151741$PS5.1...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>> On 09/04/09 02:14, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>> That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
>> No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
>> the next person of doing a web-search.
>
> Scientists may say it is theory. But they still inadvertantly treat it as
> fact.
> Tell them you can go faster than 186, 000 miles per second, and you will see
> what I mean.
I'm a scientist, you've told me, and you saw the result.
My lodger is a scientist, I just checked with her and she agreed with me
that its a theory, not a fact.
/Your/ theory isn't being borne out by experimental evidence. :-)
You also have the classic heisenberg problem. Your mere observation of
the experiment is influencing it.
You also have the classic non-neutral question problem. You're starting
from a pejorative position and asking a leading question. Inevitably
that biases your results.
Furthermore you have the "scientist versus layperson" problem. If
someone on the bus asked me that question, I'd say "no" because to
explain when the theory breaks down is beyond the level of common
ground. it'd merely confuse matters.
And then as I've already pointed out, science isn't a single homogenous
mass of identically educated persons, and if you asked a biologist or a
pharmacist, they'd be in no position to comment on the latest thinking
of quantum mech.
>>> I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
>>> hit in the face with it.
>> Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?
>
> The scientists as NASA.
Um, you do know that engineers aren't even real scientists? And I speak
as an engineering DPhil ...
>> Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
>> or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.
>
> Christians may have indeed burned scientists,
what does that have to do with the price of fish?
>but scientists do not exactly
> have clean hands either, considering how they close doors on mankind, such
> as the door to interstellar and intergalactic space travel.
You meant to add "assuming my unproven hypothesis is correct."
And again I ask, which scientists have burned their opponents in the
name of science?
>> If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
>> published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
>> who will read it and point out any issues for you.
>
> No, you and the rest here are too stupid too understand it, so I won't
> waste my time.
Talk about pompous!
Mark Earnest
"The Stainless Steel Cat" <catof...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:C6037C569...@192.168.0.2...
> In article <rvOdnQeUMcwpikDU...@posted.internetamerica>,
> "Mark Earnest" <gmea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Science is religious fanaticism that cannot even
>>get us out of Earth orbit 40 years after landing a man on the Moon.
>
>
> Cat.
Incorrect.
If scientists were smart enough to deduce from orbital mechanics that it is
possible to get to the edge of the Milky Way in only 2 months, then
the money would be there.
>
>
Mark Earnest
"Mark McIntyre" <markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
> On 09/04/09 22:06, Mark Earnest wrote:
>> "Mark McIntyre"<markmc...@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:YxlDl.151741$PS5.1...@en-nntp-07.dc1.easynews.com...
>>> On 09/04/09 02:14, Mark Earnest wrote:
>>>> That is no theory to scientists. It is considered solid fact.
>>> No its not. I've already given you references, but you're as capable as
>>> the next person of doing a web-search.
>>
>> Scientists may say it is theory. But they still inadvertantly treat it
>> as
>> fact.
>> Tell them you can go faster than 186, 000 miles per second, and you will
>> see
>> what I mean.
>
> I'm a scientist, you've told me, and you saw the result.
> My lodger is a scientist, I just checked with her and she agreed with me
> that its a theory, not a fact.
You say it is theory, but you treat it as fact.
You've built a trench around your house, and there is no way of leaving
it.
>
> /Your/ theory isn't being borne out by experimental evidence. :-)
>
> You also have the classic heisenberg problem. Your mere observation of the
> experiment is influencing it.
>
> You also have the classic non-neutral question problem. You're starting
> from a pejorative position and asking a leading question. Inevitably that
> biases your results.
There is a bit of bias in any statement, or it would not be a statement.
>
> Furthermore you have the "scientist versus layperson" problem. If someone
> on the bus asked me that question, I'd say "no" because to explain when
> the theory breaks down is beyond the level of common ground. it'd merely
> confuse matters.
>
> And then as I've already pointed out, science isn't a single homogenous
> mass of identically educated persons, and if you asked a biologist or a
> pharmacist, they'd be in no position to comment on the latest thinking of
> quantum mech.
Anyone can think of anything, in any field, expecially if the one talked to
is a specialist, because a true specialist would be able to make it clear
to anyone that comes along.
>
>
>>>> I know, every time I try to tell a scientist that this is wrong, I get
>>>> hit in the face with it.
>>> Which scientists? Biologists? Electrical engineers? Quantum physicists?
>>
>> The scientists as NASA.
>
> Um, you do know that engineers aren't even real scientists? And I speak as
> an engineering DPhil ...
NASA has plenty of astrophysicists, and it was to them that I corresponded.
>
>>> Name some scientists who burned christians alive in the name of science,
>>> or overran africa with fire and sword to prove a theory.
>>
>> Christians may have indeed burned scientists,
>
> what does that have to do with the price of fish?
Come again?
>
>>but scientists do not exactly
>> have clean hands either, considering how they close doors on mankind,
>> such
>> as the door to interstellar and intergalactic space travel.
>
> You meant to add "assuming my unproven hypothesis is correct."
Right. But you are even slightly assuming it already, by asking
questions.
>
> And again I ask, which scientists have burned their opponents in the name
> of science?
They do it in their own way. I have been burned by scientists all my life.
>
>>> If you're certain you're right, get your research peer-reviewed and
>>> published. Here would be an interesting place, there's plenty of people
>>> who will read it and point out any issues for you.
>>
>> No, you and the rest here are too stupid too understand it, so I won't
>> waste my time.
>
> Talk about pompous!
If the astrophysicists that plot trajectories to Mars are too dumb
to understand the simple orbital mechanics I present to them, then surely
you guys are as well.