Water World?

[The Starmaker]

SuperEarth?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/super-earth-found-orbiting-distant-star-liquid-water/story?id=15506125#.Tywheshikro


Aren't there any SuperMars? Or SuperVenus out there?


It won't be very long
when these guys find a..
Superman.




http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/super-earth-found-orbiting-distant-star-liquid-water/story?id=15506125#.Tywheshikro



They should be looking for trees, shouldn't they?


What I mean is..
it is the trees that make the oceans.

Oceans come from trees, from...plants.

Maybe these...
'these people'
these..science guys,
don't know this stuff.

That oceans come from trees.


They should be looking for..tree worlds,
not ocean worlds.


Not Water Worlds, Tree Worlds.



The Starmaker


It's very simple.
When 'these people'
say "Super Earth",
they are lying to you.

They are not being Honest.

Why trust them with...anything?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Maybe these... 'these people' these..
: science guys, don't know this stuff.

Or maybe they do, and you don't.
Seems far more probable.

[The Starmaker]

What is a Superman? A Superman is a person that comes from Super Earth.

[Raymond Yohros]

On Feb 3, 1:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> They should be looking for..tree worlds,
> not ocean worlds.
>

it is easy to speak your mind but that does not mean you are correct.
the universe its filled with water everywhere but it is "liquid water"
what makes life possible. when you have the right temperature
water starts to flow on the land and on the atmosphere and after
millions of years the most basic lifeforms begin to emerge before
any trees at all.

also detection of basic elements like H,C,N,O with spectroscopy
is the key for detecting water or life anywhere.

[Michael Stemper]

What is a Starmaker? A Starmaker is a person that comes from Bizarro Earth.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
I feel more like I do now than I did when I came in.

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 21:04:52 +0000 (UTC),
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>In article <4F2C49...@ix.netcom.com>, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>Wayne Throop wrote:
>>> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
>
>>> : Maybe these... 'these people' these..
>>> : science guys, don't know this stuff.
>>>
>>> Or maybe they do, and you don't.
>>> Seems far more probable.
>>
>>What is a Superman? A Superman is a person that comes from Super Earth.
>
>What is a Starmaker? A Starmaker is a person that comes from Bizarro Earth.

Naah, the Bizarros are more intelligent and handsomer, across the
board. And they don't cross-post BS to Usenet.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[The Starmaker]

Okay, I'll ask a simple question..

Do oceans come from trees, yes or no?

[Wayne Throop]

::: Maybe these... 'these people' these..

::: science guys, don't know this stuff.

:: Or maybe they do, and you don't.

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: A Superman is a person that comes from Super Earth.

So that would be an illustration of the "you don't" case, then.
Thanks for clearing that up.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Okay, I'll ask a simple question..

Is it a trick question, yes or no?
You know, a question where you use marginal or nonstandard
meanings for the words to vary the interpretation from what
any ordinary person would use.

[The Starmaker]

It's not a trick question...just requires a yes or no answer, without an explanation.

Do oceans come from trees, yes or no? I'm not going to ask WHY or How...I just don't understand
what you belief is...Do oceans come from trees, yes or no? (sorry, I'm used to talking to girls)


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Do oceans come from trees, yes or no?

You claim it's not a trick question.
The answer to that as a non-trick question is no.

This is because in the standard non-trick interpretation "oceans" and
"trees" will be assumed to mean the items we see on earth and not some
xenoanalogue situation or hypothetical, and "come from" implies trees
predate oceans, then no. No they don't.

I'm not going to ask WHY or How...

You're also not saying what you mean by "comes from" (that is, what kinds
of sequences of events count as "comes from"), not what quantifications
are put on "oceans" and "trees", as well as any contextual referents.

Without those, and using the most obvious and minimal assumptions
to fill in the blanks you've left, the answer is no.

You *sure* you didn't leave those blanks so you could change your
mind later and make it a trick question? If not, why not state
your question with at least a *little* less than nigh-total ambiguity?
(These are not yes-or-no questions. They are, however, rhetorical.
I think by now *every*body knows the answers for all practical purposes.)

Now if you want to ask a *different* question, like, "were many of the
oxygen atoms currently in the ocean respired from trees at least once
sometime in the past", then the answer is "yes".

[Greg Goss]

No.

Oceans were around LONG before any plants developed for land. Europa
has an ocean with no sign of trees.

--
"Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)

[The Starmaker]

Europa! I think we all know where you get your info from...the science guys. You believe anything
they tell you, don't you. I bet you have a dog named ToTo too.

Would you like to buy a brooklyn bridge? Buy now and I'll give two of them for the price of one!!! Free Shipping!!!!

Did you know the word 'naive' is not in the dictionary?

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Feb 3, 5:34 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss wrote:
>

> > The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > >Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > >> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> > >> : Maybe these...  'these people' these..
> > >> : science guys, don't know this stuff.
>
> > >> Or maybe they do, and you don't.
> > >> Seems far more probable.
>
> > >Okay, I'll ask a simple question..
>
> > >Do oceans come from trees, yes or no?
>
> > No.
>
> > Oceans were around LONG before any plants developed for land.  Europa
> > has an ocean with no sign of trees.
>
> > --
> > "Recessions catch what the auditors miss." (Galbraith)
>
> Europa! I think we all know where you get your info from

You haven't mentioned the source of your "info".


Mark L. Fergerson

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I think we all know where you get your info from...the science guys.

As opposed to Starmaker. Who makes it up out of thin air.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 03/02/2012 1:32 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> SuperEarth?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/super-earth-found-orbiting-distant-star-liquid-water/story?id=15506125#.Tywheshikro
>
>
> Aren't there any SuperMars? Or SuperVenus out there?

I think we'll find that most of these are actually SuperMars/SuperVenuses.

Yousuf Khan

[The Starmaker]

Greg Goss wrote:
>
> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Wayne Throop wrote:
> >>
> >> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> >> : Maybe these... 'these people' these..
> >> : science guys, don't know this stuff.
> >>
> >> Or maybe they do, and you don't.
> >> Seems far more probable.
> >
> >Okay, I'll ask a simple question..
> >
> >Do oceans come from trees, yes or no?
>
> No.
>
> Oceans were around LONG before any plants developed for land. Europa
> has an ocean with no sign of trees.

Are you people are going to start this this this..this comparison with
Earth and
other lifeless planets?

I'm talking about Earth here...
first the tree, then the ocean came.

Why do you think Beavers are soo busy? Trees create and prevent floods.

[Greg Goss]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Greg Goss wrote:

>> Europa has an ocean with no sign of trees.
>

>Europa! I think we all know where you get your info from...the science guys. You believe anything
>they tell you, don't you. I bet you have a dog named ToTo too.

I'm a cat person. But I tend to stick with the name the cat has when
I get her. (Fluffy, Misty, CJ)

And I wouldn't want one of those little yappy dogs like Toto. It
worked that one time when he messed with a wizard, but that's not the
way to bet.

>Would you like to buy a brooklyn bridge? Buy now and I'll give two of them for the price of one!!! Free Shipping!!!!

Sorry. I now live on the prairies and have nowhere to put 'em.

>Did you know the word 'naive' is not in the dictionary?

Don't need a dictionary. Look at a label from the biggest bottled
water brand in a mirror.

[The Starmaker]

Okay, I'll make it real simple...even a 3 year old will understand.

Trees make clouds.
Clouds make rain
Rain make ocean.

Trees make ocean.

I know, I know...
they told you the complete
opposite in skool.

But that's not my fault.

That's why you're paying
for internet access..
you want the truth.

The Truth is...

The ocean comes from trees.


What do you think makes the rain
in a rain forest, trees!


I'm not here to tell you
what you already know..
I'm here to tell you
what you don't know.

If I show you a picture
of Al Capone..it's going
to be a picture you've never seen before.


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I'm talking about Earth here...

: first the tree, then the ocean came.

You're talking about a sequence you made up with no evidence.

[gaby de wilde]

On 4 feb, 09:24, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> That's why you're paying
> for internet access..
> you want the truth.
>

hear hear!

:-)

[Saimhain Moose]

On Feb 3, 4:36 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Okay, I'll ask a simple question..
>
> Do oceans come from trees, yes or no?

*sigh* Oceans and trees are both part of the water cycle.
Neither exclusively "comes from" the other. Each partly
"comes from" the other.

Fur fng onpx jvgu n unaq-qhfgvat trfgher, naq nqqrq,
ol ab zrnaf haqre ure oerngu, "Gjvg."

[michael]

On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:59:41 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Are you people are going to start this this this..this comparison with
>Earth and
>other lifeless planets?
>
>I'm talking about Earth here...
>first the tree, then the ocean came.

OK, moron. Time for one of the "science guys" to
speak up. Water is a relatively abundant molecule in
the universe. The existence of it has been conclusively
demonstrated on other bodies in our solar system as
well as on comets. This would suggest that it is highly
unlikely that trees were a requirement in the formation
of it.

As for the tree vs. ocean question, on this planet we
have a pretty detailed fossil record that documents the
evolution of flora, beginning with single-celled algae
(floating in a pre-existing ocean) and progressing through
algal colonies such as stromatolites, then right on through
several additional stages of evolution before the first
true plants (as we now know them) appeared. It took
many millions of years of additional evolution in the sea
before the first land plants appeared in the tidal zone, and
hundreds of millions of years before the first true "tree"
appeared. So, Oceans from Trees? No. End of story.

Trees use water - even a medium sized tree can process
several hundred gallons a day through itself by transpiration.
The process of photosynthesis actually consumes water (H2) and
carbon dioxide (CO2), breaking down the H2O and reusing the
hydrogen in the formation of the glucose molecule (C6H1206)
which is the basis of all higher life forms on Earth. The oxygen
freed in the reaction is released into the air, which is why you can
breathe.

Next Question?

[Chris]

On Feb 4, 3:24 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Greg Goss wrote:
>

> > > The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > >Wayne Throop wrote:
>

> > > >> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

And idiot trolls make posts.

Why are there clouds and rain over the equator even in spots there are
no trees? How many hurricanes form over land, rather than the middle
of the ocean?

Heat over water makes clouds. No trees needed.

Chris

[The Starmaker]

It is the process of photosynthesis absorbing carbon dioxide that cooled the earth and created...ocean.

[Greg Goss]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>It is the process of photosynthesis absorbing carbon dioxide that cooled the earth and created...ocean.

OK, I laughed. Photosynthesis cooled the Earth enough to allow water.

I remember books (indeed, tried to write one once when I was twelve)
that did that for Venus, but free-floating atmospheric algae is a long
way from trees.

Should we tell starmaker about smoke rings?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: It is the process of photosynthesis absorbing carbon dioxide that

: cooled the earth and created...ocean.

Even if that were true and photosynthesis predated oceans on earth
(and there is very good reason to believe it isn't true, but supposing
it were) that doesn't imply trees predated oceans. Even today, most
photosynthesis on earth doesn't occur in trees, it occurs in algae in
the oceans. Basically, for photosynthesis-as-we-know-it to occur at all,
you need oceans first.

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 16:04:58 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org>
wrote:

>The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>It is the process of photosynthesis absorbing carbon dioxide that cooled the earth and created...ocean.
>
>OK, I laughed. Photosynthesis cooled the Earth enough to allow water.
>
>I remember books (indeed, tried to write one once when I was twelve)
>that did that for Venus, but free-floating atmospheric algae is a long
>way from trees.
>
>Should we tell starmaker about smoke rings?

No, don't even bother with telling him about boiling plants to
cook them. His delusions are immune to reality.

[michael]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:03:26 -0800, The Starmaker

Nope. The oceans existed for a billion years or more before
photosynthesis capable flora developed.

[David DeLaney]

On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 00:26:31 -0700, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>And I wouldn't want one of those little yappy dogs like Toto. It
>worked that one time when he messed with a wizard, but that's not the
>way to bet.

He's not _yappy_. He just doesn't have very much to say most of the time. He
_can_ talk.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[The Starmaker]

>michael wrote:
>> OK, moron. Time for one of the "science guys" to
>> speak up. Water is a relatively abundant molecule in
>> the universe.

>>...The oceans existed for a billion years or more ...


There is a line in the movie "Chinatown" with Jack Nicholson:

"Jesus Christ, this guy's really got
water on the brain." -Chinatown


Michael got "Water Worlds" on his mind...


These 'science guys' are obsessed with finding water everywhere!

Did you people see that funny NASA news item and that NASA guy with a
empty bucket in his hand saying there are a dozen buckets of water on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrLuOFoPlRc

Couldn't he at least filled that bucket with water?

They expected to find a "tea spoon" of water??!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrLuOFoPlRc

They are going to come back from the moon with a tea spoon of water in their hand?

Can you believe these people?

Somewhere along the line..
the word went out in this
'scientific community'
that 'water' is it.

And they *all* sticking to it.

Reminds me when the mafia was going
around telling everyone
"There is no Mafia".


The ocean is a tree, and the fishes are the leaves --The Starmaker


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: The ocean is a tree, and the fishes are the leaves

The door is a jar, and Starmaker is a troll.

Rain, oh Gautama, is the fire, the year its fuel, the clouds its
smoke, the lightning its flame, cinders, sparks. In this fire the
gods offer King Moon as libation. Out of this offering
the rain is born.
--- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
(via Zelazny's Lord of Light)

[Michael Stemper]

I'll have to admit that I'm impressed with its imagination. I could never
have come up with such an inane idea.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at:
http://www.leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written
Please read it before posting.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <9p5rsv...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:
>The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>It is the process of photosynthesis absorbing carbon dioxide that cooled the earth and created...ocean.
>
>OK, I laughed. Photosynthesis cooled the Earth enough to allow water.
>
>I remember books (indeed, tried to write one once when I was twelve)
>that did that for Venus, but free-floating atmospheric algae is a long
>way from trees.
>
>Should we tell starmaker about smoke rings?

The Gandalf kind or the Niven kind?

[The Starmaker]

Okay, maybe you need more clarification...

The ocean water comes from the river.

The river flows from the plants and trees...

Green turles come from the leaves...
they flow into the ocean to become ocean turtles.

Monkeys come from the tree, not the ocean.

When you're sleeping, ...do you ever get the feeling you're falling off a tree?


The Starmaker


Look at a leaf, it is shaped like a fish.

http://etc.usf.edu/clipart/20800/20872/cordateleaf_20872_lg.gif

http://spelb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Sea-Fish-1.jpg

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/images08/AutumnleavesST.jpg

Where did you think fishes came from? The same place the ocean came from...down the river from the trees, plants and leaves.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: The ocean water comes from the river.

True (to a first appxoimation).

: The river flows from the plants and trees...

False (to all approximations).

[Greg Goss]

mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:

>In article <9p5rsv...@mid.individual.net>, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> writes:
>>The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>It is the process of photosynthesis absorbing carbon dioxide that cooled the earth and created...ocean.
>>
>>OK, I laughed. Photosynthesis cooled the Earth enough to allow water.
>>
>>I remember books (indeed, tried to write one once when I was twelve)
>>that did that for Venus, but free-floating atmospheric algae is a long
>>way from trees.
>>
>>Should we tell starmaker about smoke rings?
>
>The Gandalf kind or the Niven kind?

I'm not a Tolkein fan, so I was thinking of Niven. Was there
something similarly relevant in Tolkein?

[The Starmaker]

Here is a picture of a plant delivering water...
http://i.ehow.co.uk/images/a06/es/69/non_flowering-vascular-plants-1.1-800x800.jpg

tranporting, distributing, capice?


Like Arrowhead, Sparklettes...
but without the truck.

[Bill Snyder]

It's the "voices."

[The Starmaker]

without the bottle...

here is grass older than the ocean..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/9066393/Ancient-seagrass-Oldest-living-thing-on-earth-discovered-in-Mediterranean-Sea.html

[Michael Stemper]

The wizard Gandalf blew outrageous smoke rings of various colors and
shapes, and sent them scurrying across large rooms chasing each other.

They seem just as relevant to whatever passes for thought in starfaker
as do _The Smoke Ring_ and _The Integral Trees_.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?

[The Starmaker]

Raymond Yohros wrote:
>
> On Feb 3, 1:32 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > They should be looking for..tree worlds,
> > not ocean worlds.
> >
>
> it is easy to speak your mind but that does not mean you are correct.
> the universe its filled with water everywhere but it is "liquid water"
> what makes life possible. when you have the right temperature
> water starts to flow on the land and on the atmosphere and after
> millions of years the most basic lifeforms begin to emerge before
> any trees at all.
>
> also detection of basic elements like H,C,N,O with spectroscopy
> is the key for detecting water or life anywhere.

There is a reason why Earth has more water than anywhere else...
not a tea spoon, not a dozen buckets..


think green.

Why is the ocean green? Tea leaves.

[The Starmaker]

Keep in mind...childred,
that the trees
created the ocean.
Water flowed from the plants
http://i.ehow.co.uk/images/a06/es/69/non_flowering-vascular-plants-1.1-800x800.jpg
down it's own created river
down it's sea...and
into that big thing
that is now called an ocean.

The earth millions of years ago was one big rain forest.


You no longer need to wonder why there is so much water on earth.


Now, throw out those...those...textbooks.

In the garbage can where it belongs.


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Keep in mind...childred, that the trees created the ocean.

Why should these childred (whoever they may be)
keep a blatant falsehood in mind?

[raymond]

No reason. But yes plants are the way of terraforming any place
or planet. Perfect recycling machines of nature.
we see oceans blue because of the abundance of nitrogen in
The atmosphere.

[The Starmaker]

"falsehood"?

First, according to the beliefs of the 'scientific community'


"The question of the origin of water on Earth, has not been clarified."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth

There exist only 'theories' as to how the world's oceans were formed..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth


I'm not offering..theories, I'm clarifying the origin of oceans on earth!

The trees created the ocean.

Next question.


The Starmaker

[michael]

On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:12:00 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>The earth millions of years ago was one big rain forest.
>
>
>You no longer need to wonder why there is so much water on earth.
>
>
>Now, throw out those...those...textbooks.
>
>In the garbage can where it belongs.
>
>
>The Starmaker

The 60's were rough on you, huh?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I'm not offering..theories,

True, what you're "offering" isn't as coherent as a theory.
It's made up nonsense.

: The trees created the ocean. Next question.

Good example. Made up, check. Nonsense, check. Not a theory, check.

[Michael Stemper]

In article <qf35j7965fl9vacmo...@4ax.com>, michael <m...@here.com> writes:
>On Tue, 07 Feb 2012 20:12:00 -0800, The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>>The earth millions of years ago was one big rain forest.
>>
>>You no longer need to wonder why there is so much water on earth.
>>
>>Now, throw out those...those...textbooks.
>>
>>In the garbage can where it belongs.
>

>The 60's were rough on you, huh?

Mr. Shatner says it better than I could:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgHxFNFWlZc>

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>

A preposition is something that you should never end a sentence with.

[The Starmaker]

It was the 'scientific community' *products* that ruined the 60's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDTsZn-eM5g&feature=player_embedded


The Starmaker


Atomb bombs, LDS, computer viruses...what do you have for us Today?

[Greg Goss]

thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:

>: The river flows from the plants and trees...
>
>False (to all approximations).

(third or fourth approximation)

I grew up in an area where the wind patterns dropped rain on hillsides
all around the valley, leaving the valley itself a semi desert getting
12 or 13 inches a year of precipitation, but with lots of available
water in year-round streams.

After a century of piping that wate to farm fields, trees and lawns,
the city now gets about 20 inches of water a year.

So you can pipe the river to the trees, and still get the water back
again.

[The Starmaker]

Everybody is asking the wrong question...
The question is not, "Where did all the water go?"
http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pole_01_H%20copy.jpg

The question should be, "Where did all the trees go?"
http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pole_01_H%20copy.jpg

Where do you think all this water came from?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254834-0887AA34000005DC-634_964x917.jpg


I don't understand how anyone could think the universe is an aquarium.

I don't live in a water world...

I don't even know how to swim.

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

You know what I notice is a pattern
with 'these people'?

It's those so-called
"artist conceptions".

Like this for example
of a water world...
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_super_earth_jef_120203_wg.jpg
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/super-earth-found-orbiting-distant-star-liquid-water/story?id=15506125#.TzWMl8hikro


Is the water the white part?
http://a.abcnews.com/images/Technology/ht_super_earth_jef_120203_wg.jpg
No, that's the clouds! They should have called it, Cloudy Worlds!
There's more clouds than water.

I think it's obvious..
it's not an "artist conceptions"...
it's those 'science guys' conception.

They took a picture
of the earth, and they fooled around
with it by removing the united states and
other countries..

It's not an artist conception, ...it's
just FRAUD.


fraud;
Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial (government grants) or personal gain.


All you 'science guys', put your hands up...
you're all under arrest!

Put these guys behind the bars and throw away the key.


The Starmaker


"It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; I'm making a citizens arrest.

[The Starmaker]

Is this a picture of Mars?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254834-0887AA34000005DC-634_964x917.jpg

No, it's an artist conception of Mars...

[The Starmaker]

Here is what Mars looks like...
http://www.youtube.com/v/kLv9_lgGCR8
http://www.youtube.com/v/bKknJvZIn24

[The Starmaker]

If Mars was further away...
where no one can see it...
they wouldn't show you this picture..
http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pole_01_H%20copy.jpg

They say this is what Mars looks like:
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254834-0887AA34000005DC-634_964x917.jpg

But since it's too close...to fool anyone..

they show dumb picture like this:
http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pole_01_H%20copy.jpg

Where are the clouds?


Where are the clouds?


Where are the clouds?
http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pole_01_H%20copy.jpg

I don't see any clouds..

The Starmaker

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Feb 10, 2:48 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Here is what Mars looks like...
> >http://www.youtube.com/v/kLv9_lgGCR8
> >http://www.youtube.com/v/bKknJvZIn24
>
> If Mars was further away...
> where no one can see it...

> they wouldn't show you this picture..http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pol...
>
> They say this is what Mars looks like:http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/02/article-1254834-0887AA34000...

>
> But since it's too close...to fool anyone..
>

> they show dumb picture like this:http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pol...

>
> Where are the clouds?
>
> Where are the clouds?
>

> Where are the clouds?http://www.ecnmag.com/uploadedImages/ECN/News/2012/02/Ocean_North_pol...

>
> I don't see any clouds.

That's because you make shit up instead of looking at actual
pictures of Mars:

https://www.google.com/search?q=mars+clouds


Mark L. Fergerson

[michael]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:47:46 -0800, The Starmaker
<star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>I don't understand how anyone could think the universe is an aquarium.
>
>I don't live in a water world...
>
>I don't even know how to swim.
>
>The Starmaker

Or think. Or Bathe.

[The Starmaker]

Is there some sort of 'batheing school'?

And where does one go to learn how to think? In the
'scientific community', it's about all 'thinking a like'.

If you don't believe in 'global warming', you're a "denier".

If you think alike, you're an outcast in the scientific community...

So where do you learn how to think?



The Starmaker


Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

[The Starmaker]

If I ask a simple question, like
"What is the age of the universe?" You'all
come up with the same answer...and you're all wrong!

I don't subscribe to 'mafia thinking'.


Read my sig...

The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

You want to know the age of the universe? Try 'thinking' numbers higher than billions..if you dare.

[The Starmaker]

okay, here's a question..

What is the name of that planet
that exploded into pieces, and is now
known as the Saturn rings?

I just want to know the name of the planet.

If it doesn't have a name yet, ...I guess
I have to wait untill one of you guys take the
*initiative*, and give it a name.

The Starmaker

and please, don't give it a password sounding name...
it's sooo dumb when you guys do that.

I like Venus and Mars, not GJ667Cc.


I have enough problems remembering my passwords...

I can remember Mars, I cannot remember GJ667Cc.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: What is the name of that planet that exploded into pieces, and is now

: known as the Saturn rings?

What makes you claim some object exploded to form the rings,
and somewhat more bizarre, that it was a planet?

[Bill Snyder]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:39:58 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

Drugs.

[Howard Brazee]

On Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:39:58 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:

>: What is the name of that planet that exploded into pieces, and is now
>: known as the Saturn rings?
>
>What makes you claim some object exploded to form the rings,
>and somewhat more bizarre, that it was a planet?

I wouldn't be at all surprised if there isn't some old SF novel with
that as a story line. And I'm posting this message from
rec.arts.sf.written.

I remember a book I liked as a child, _Four from Planet Five_ by
Murray Leinster, where four kids came from the far past - before the
moon got pock marked from their own planet getting blown up (war?,
nuclear war???).

I'm kind of afraid of re-reading it because of that preposterous
notion, but I recently re-read a similar story, "When Time Was New",
by Robert Young which I was able to enjoy despite its premise.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

[Michael Moroney]

The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>okay, here's a question..

>What is the name of that planet
>that exploded into pieces, and is now
>known as the Saturn rings?

>I just want to know the name of the planet.

Edouard Roche in the 19th century theorized that it was a smallish moon
that broke apart (not exploded) due to being within the Roche Limit, he
named the moon Veritas.

Some astronomers believe the rings may have come from a moon about 500 km
diameter broken by an asteroid strike, others think it was material from
Saturn's formation that could never form a moon (due to being within the
Roche Limit).

[The Starmaker]

"more bizarre"???

There are things
in the universe
exploding
all the time...

Nothing unusual
about that.

From the perspective
of the universe..
it is the Earth
and everything in it,
that's more bizarre.


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: "more bizarre"???

Yes.

: There are things in the universe exploding all the time...
: Nothing unusual about that.

For one of those things to be orbiting Saturn (or leave debris
orbiting Saturn) and still e called a "planet" is less frequent,
and more bizarre.

: From the perspective of the universe.. it is the Earth and everything

: in it, that's more bizarre.

No, just a few of the things, and only "so far as we now know".

[The Starmaker]

"we"?
You mean you.
"so far as You now know"

[Greg Goss]

mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>Edouard Roche in the 19th century theorized that it was a smallish moon
>that broke apart (not exploded) due to being within the Roche Limit, he
>named the moon Veritas.
>
>Some astronomers believe the rings may have come from a moon about 500 km
>diameter broken by an asteroid strike, others think it was material from
>Saturn's formation that could never form a moon (due to being within the
>Roche Limit).

I thought that the current thinking was that Saturn's rings are too
"new" to be leftover from failed-to-build moons.

[Jared]

Possibly because of an article like this:

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/violent-origin-for-saturns-rings.html

--
Jared

[William December Starr]

In article <rdsqi7tftg6t2v3rp...@4ax.com>,
michael <m...@here.com> said:

> The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>> Are you people are going to start this this this..this comparison
>> with Earth and other lifeless planets?
>>
>> I'm talking about Earth here...
>> first the tree, then the ocean came.
>
> OK, moron. Time for one of the "science guys" to speak up.

You are mistaken. With regard to the "Starmaker" troll the only
proper/sane response to is to ignore it and hope that it gets hit
by a truck real soon. Speaking up just feeds it.

-- wds

[The Starmaker]

I continue to see the 'scientific communtiy' *comparing* Earth to 'other' lifeless planets...

that's a mistake.

There are things that work, and there are things that don't work...
why would you compare stuff that works with stuff that doesn't work?

That's dumb, if you ask me.

First the tree, then the ocean.

Any other way doesn't make sense..

Fishes come from Leaves.

The leaf
falls from the plant
that created the river..
into the ocean
the leaf turns
into a fish.

This is Evolution.

It's simple.
When you're walking
pick up a leaf
and you can see
the fish.

They are both shaped the exact same way.


http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-RT489_visual_G_20120210173417.jpg

http://www.highpants.com/cankler/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/highpants_cankler_GreenLeaf.png


Take a pencil
and draw the outline...


This is childs play...

Until you guys get it right, I'm cutting all funding to Mars and other planets.

I don't want to hear anymore ridculous search for "Water".


I don't give a fuck if there is a tea spoon of water on the Moon.

Do I make myself clear?

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

In otherwords, I'm cutting all funding for space programs..you guys are going
to have to ...WORK for a living. McDonalds is hiring...

Science...has no value.

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

at least somebody is going in the right direction..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/17116689

[The Starmaker]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/hubble-telescope-reveals-entirely-new-kind-planet/?intcmp=features

“GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of,” said Berta, who hails from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
“A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.”


"A huge fraction"?

What does "A huge fraction" mean? Is that...con math?


“GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of,”

Now, let me see if I can figure this out con...


"like no planet we know of"

What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!

"like no planet we know of"...



These people have water on their brains...


Think Trees.


The Starmaker







The Starmaker wrote:
>
> SuperEarth?
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/super-earth-found-orbiting-distant-star-liquid-water/story?id=15506125#.Tywheshikro
>
> Aren't there any SuperMars? Or SuperVenus out there?
>
> It won't be very long
> when these guys find a..
> Superman.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/super-earth-found-orbiting-distant-star-liquid-water/story?id=15506125#.Tywheshikro
>
> They should be looking for trees, shouldn't they?
>
> What I mean is..
> it is the trees that make the oceans.
>
> Oceans come from trees, from...plants.
>
> Maybe these...
> 'these people'
> these..science guys,
> don't know this stuff.
>
> That oceans come from trees.
>
> They should be looking for..tree worlds,
> not ocean worlds.
>
> Not Water Worlds, Tree Worlds.
>
> The Starmaker
>
> It's very simple.
> When 'these people'
> say "Super Earth",
> they are lying to you.
>
> They are not being Honest.
>
> Why trust them with...anything?

[Suzanne Blom]

On 2/21/2012 11:32 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/hubble-telescope-reveals-entirely-new-kind-planet/?intcmp=features
>
> “GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of,” said Berta, who hails from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
> “A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.”
>
> "A huge fraction"?
>
> What does "A huge fraction" mean? Is that...con math?
>
> “GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of,”
>
> Now, let me see if I can figure this out con...
>
> "like no planet we know of"
>
> What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!
>

Um, no. Earth has a very thin skin of water on about two-thirds of its
surface.
Europa and Ganymede have a lot more,but even they are mostly rock.

[The Starmaker]

“A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.”

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/hubble-telescope-reveals-entirely-new-kind-planet/?intcmp=features

I'll explain what "A huge fraction.." realy means...

it's a con game these 'science guys' use to trick people into asking them "What fraction is it?"

It's like a gypsy fortune teller saying "I see huge money coming your way."

If you ask, "How much?", you're hooked.

If you ask what the 'fraction' is, you're hooked. You fell for it.

The headline reads "Hubble", but they do a switch and bait with an 'artist conception' instead of a Hubble photo.

The whole article is a con job. If you want to find out what the fraction is, it's going to cost you a billion dollars!

Recently, a woman trying to get government funding (food stamps) for her two children, shot both
her children and herself when she was denied food stamps.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/07/us/woman-seeking-food-stamps-shoots-her-children.html

She simply didn't know the con game.

She should have gotten her kids to draw water on the moon and they would have given her a million dollars!

That's how these 'science guys' get food stamps.

They draw circles with water on it...

http://a57.foxnews.com/img.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Scitech/660/371/waterworld.JPG


How much is a "A huge fraction.."? Don't ask...it's a con.

If you ask..
they will wrap
a scarf
aound their heads
pull out a
crystal ball
and say...
"It's whatever you imagined it to be.."


It's just a con game to get food stamps.

[Wayne Throop]

::: "GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of", said Berta, who hails from

::: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "A huge fraction of
::: its mass is made up of water."

:: The Starmaker
:: What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!

: Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net>
: Um, no.

Earth is about .023% water by mass.
I don't consider 1/4300 a "huge fraction",
no matter what Starmaker wants to pretend.
(In this case, seems to be pretending to be
confused about the difference between
surface area and mass.)

[The Starmaker]

two-thirds? That's a 'huge fraction'! That's almost four-thirds!!...(if i got my math right)

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> ::: "GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of", said Berta, who hails from
> ::: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "A huge fraction of
> ::: its mass is made up of water."
>
> :: The Starmaker
> :: What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!
>
> : Suzanne Blom <bo...@sueblom.net>
> : Um, no.
>
> Earth is about .023% water by mass.
> I don't consider 1/4300 a "huge fraction",

1/4300? That's a "huge fraction"!

frac·tion

noun /?frakSH?n/
fractions, plural

A numerical quantity that is not a whole number (e.g., 1/2, 0.5)

A small or tiny part, amount, or proportion of something


(cause i know you have no idea what 'fraction' means)

But what is a huge tiny?

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: I'll explain what "A huge fraction.." realy means...

It means about 75% water by mass.
Which I found by an exhaustive search lasting about 30 seconds.
The scientists may try to hide the actual number, but if
you're willing to put in the work, you can find out the
actual number they mean.

[Wayne Throop]

:::: "GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of", said Berta, who hails from

:::: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "A huge fraction
:::: of its mass is made up of water."

::: What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!

:: Um, no. Earth has a very thin skin of water on
:: about two-thirds of its surface.

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: two-thirds? That's a 'huge fraction'!

It's a huge fractio of surface area. The fraction by mass is 1/4300.
Which is not a huge fraction. 3/4 is a huge fraction.
And that's the fraction, by mass, they're talking about for GL 1214b.

Don't you read what you cut and paste? Remember, it said

A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.

it did not say

A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.

(Actually, of course, I expect you did read it, and are merely
lying about mistaking surface area for mass.)

[PD]

On Feb 22, 1:21 pm, thro...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :::: "GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of", said Berta, who hails from
> :::: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.  "A huge fraction
> :::: of its mass is made up of water."
>
> ::: What planet has a huge fraction made of water?  Earth!
>
> :: Um, no.  Earth has a very thin skin of water on
> :: about two-thirds of its surface.
>

> : The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com>

> : two-thirds?  That's a 'huge fraction'!
>
> It's a huge fractio of surface area.  The fraction by mass is 1/4300.
> Which is not a huge fraction.    3/4 is a huge fraction.
> And that's the fraction, by mass, they're talking about for GL 1214b.
>
> Don't you read what you cut and paste?  Remember, it said
>
>     A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.
>
> it did not say
>
>     A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.
>
> (Actually, of course, I expect you did read it, and are merely
> lying about mistaking surface area for mass.)

You are talking with someone who intentionally says stupid things,
just to see if he can provoke you into responding to stupid things.
When you do, he smiles and says, "Yay, I win again. Let's see if I can
do it even one more time."

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

I think that (if he's not simply a troll) he's just randomly
associating, grabbing odd phrases and throwing them together with a very
casual "analysis" from the point of view of his anti-thinking agenda.

But the more I watch the more I'm sure that he's just a troll doing a
free-association trolling approach. No one that unable to understand
basic concepts would be able to turn on a computer.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> :::: "GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of", said Berta, who hails from
> :::: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "A huge fraction
> :::: of its mass is made up of water."
>
> ::: What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!
>
> :: Um, no. Earth has a very thin skin of water on
> :: about two-thirds of its surface.
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : two-thirds? That's a 'huge fraction'!
>
> It's a huge fractio of surface area. The fraction by mass is 1/4300.
> Which is not a huge fraction. 3/4 is a huge fraction.
> And that's the fraction, by mass, they're talking about for GL 1214b.
>
> Don't you read what you cut and paste? Remember, it said
>
> A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.
>
> it did not say
>
> A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.

Is there a difference???? I cannot tell the difference...

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: 1/4300? That's a "huge fraction"!

No it isn't. Did you skip the day in third grade
when they taught about denominators?

: noun /?frakSH?n/

: fractions, plural
:
: A numerical quantity that is not a whole number (e.g., 1/2, 0.5)
: A small or tiny part, amount, or proportion of something

Those are, of course, two different meanings, and it's rather obvious
that the first is meant.

: But what is a huge tiny?

You're making up the "tiny" part, since you've intentionally
mismatched the definition. Playing games with selective quotation.
And you have the chutzpah to claim somebody *else* is running a con?

A huge fraction of the mass of an object would be some numerical
quantity smaller than but relatively close to 1. An example,
as in this case, would be 3/4 for GL 1214b. As you very
well realize, and are just pretending you don't.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Don't you read what you cut and paste? Remember, it said

::
:: A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.
::
:: it did not say
::
:: A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Is there a difference???? I cannot tell the difference...

Well, there you have it folks, condemned by his own words.

[Wayne Throop]

:: Don't you read what you cut and paste? Remember, it said

::
:: A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.
::
:: it did not say
::
:: A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Is there a difference???? I cannot tell the difference...

Or, put another way:

$ diff <(echo A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.|fmt -1) \
<(echo A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.|fmt -1)
6c6,7
< mass
---
> surface
> area

[The Starmaker]

But, but..that's how you 'science con artist' talk..

You say,

"A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.

I did not say,

A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water."

Everyone knows the con...the further the planet is from us, the more water it has.


I'm waiting, I'm waiting ...for the next big con. Which one of yous 'science guys' is
going to the media to say you found a Tree World? A planet with a huge fraction of trees?

The Starmaker

[The Starmaker]

Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>
> On 2/22/12 2:21 PM, Wayne Throop wrote:
> > :::: "GJ 1214b is like no planet we know of", said Berta, who hails from
> > :::: the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "A huge fraction
> > :::: of its mass is made up of water."
> >
> > ::: What planet has a huge fraction made of water? Earth!
> >
> > :: Um, no. Earth has a very thin skin of water on
> > :: about two-thirds of its surface.
> >
> > : The Starmaker<star...@ix.netcom.com>
> > : two-thirds? That's a 'huge fraction'!
> >
> > It's a huge fractio of surface area. The fraction by mass is 1/4300.
> > Which is not a huge fraction. 3/4 is a huge fraction.
> > And that's the fraction, by mass, they're talking about for GL 1214b.
> >
> > Don't you read what you cut and paste? Remember, it said
> >
> > A huge fraction of its mass is made up of water.
> >
> > it did not say
> >
> > A huge fraction of its surface area is made up of water.
> >
> > (Actually, of course, I expect you did read it, and are merely
> > lying about mistaking surface area for mass.)
>
> I think

You think you think.

[The Starmaker]

I see the word "Hubble" in the Headlines

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/hubble-telescope-reveals-entirely-new-kind-planet/?intcmp=features

but where is the hubble photograph?


It's a 'switch and bait' con.


I won't stand for it.


If you want food stamps, stand on line like everyone else.


The Starmaker

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: Everyone knows the con...

The con is that Starmaker claims that "scientists say"

: the further the planet is from us, the more water it has.

when he knows very well that's not true. In fact, GL 1214b is
notable because it's much *closer* than other possible water-bearing
planets, yet has more water by mass than any other planet seen so far.

: I'm waiting, I'm waiting ...for the next big con.

Why wait? Make up another one right away, just like you made this one up.
You might try to do a better job next time covering up the fact that
the facts don't support you, though.

[Wayne Throop]

: The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
: It's a 'switch and bait' con.

Except that you made up the bait by misconstruing what was said,
and nobody is pulling a switch.

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

Terry? Is that you?

[PD]

On 2/22/2012 2:09 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

>
>
> I see the word "Hubble" in the Headlines
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/hubble-telescope-reveals-entirely-new-kind-planet/?intcmp=features
>
> but where is the hubble photograph?
>
>
> It's a 'switch and bait' con.
>
>
> I won't stand for it.

That's good, because I'm pretty sure you can't type and stand up at the
same time without hurting yourself.

I don't play games with baiters, especially if they're lazy and put no
effort into at least crafting the bait well.

[David DeLaney]

Oh no no no. Terry is MUCH better at it. And also has a makes-sense mode.

Dave
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Dang Franz]

On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:42:58 -0500, David DeLaney wrote:

> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>>On 2/22/12 2:53 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>> I think
>>>
>>> You think you think.
>>
>> Terry? Is that you?
>
> Oh no no no. Terry is MUCH better at it. And also has a makes-sense
> mode.

On the other hand, Terry is prone to vicious baiting and flaming, while
the insult to Olaf Stapledon's memory here just natters on and on in such
a way as to ensure he will always be the illustration to go beside "You
Fail Physics Forever" in the dictionary.

Given the choice, I'd probably pick Terry, then ...


... to boot off the 'net forever.

[The Starmaker]

There is probably a huge fraction of people in this world who have no idea what you're talking about...

[tj Frazir]

a water planet with lots of life.
not just a water planet.
anoxygen rich air planet from life.
40 light years away.

same sise as earth.

http://community.webtv.net/GravityPhysics/WhaleSteamEngineA

[The Starmaker]

Wayne Throop wrote:
>
> : The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com>
> : Everyone knows the con...
>
> The con is that Starmaker claims that "scientists say"
>
> : the further the planet is from us, the more water it has.
>
> when he knows very well that's not true. In fact, GL 1214b is
> notable because it's much *closer* than other possible water-bearing
> planets, yet has more water by mass than any other planet seen so far.

"*closer*"?? How long would it take for one of our rocket ships to get there?