Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Planets of Proxima Certauri

247 views
Skip to first unread message

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 7, 2016, 8:25:48 PM9/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............


Alan Folmsbee

unread,
Sep 7, 2016, 9:23:40 PM9/7/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
To travel to Proxima Centauri in 6 years, accelerate at 1 g for 312 days. That will give you a speed of 0.9 c. Coast for 4 years. Decelerate at 1 g for 312 days. You're there.

Poutnik

unread,
Sep 8, 2016, 12:55:54 AM9/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Dne 08/09/2016 v 02:25 numbernu...@gmail.com napsal(a):
> Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............
>
... but as this is not related specifically to the theory of relativity,
it is off topic post.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )
Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 8, 2016, 9:39:40 PM9/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
First, a jet fighter weigh about 2000 lb and produces 9 g force. So, lets say 1000 lb of fuel and 1000 lb of hardware and a jet fighter travels for about say 5 hours. So if we use a proportionality, a jet fighter used as a rocket ship could propagate a 1 g for 48 hours with a weight of 1000 lbs of fuel. To propagate for 316 days would require 20,000 lbs of fuel or 200 tons of fuel that using a fighter jet as a rocket. Now, using a space ship with food water and oxygen would weigh at least 20 tons and would require 2,000 tons of fuel. So, you need a new physics to propagate to the Poxima Centauri. There is also another problem regarding the distance if you believe a planisphere really works. I have one but I have not used it yet but some day I will see if it works and get back to you.

Alan Folmsbee

unread,
Sep 8, 2016, 10:09:48 PM9/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Thursday, September 8, 2016 at

Imagine how much fuel is needed to accelerate to 0.9 c. The space craft example weights 1000 tons m. That has a big parachute to decelerate when it gets to Proxima Centauri. But to accelerate, the ship will need ten billion tons of hydrogen fuel, plus oxidizer. Here is the calculation:

The distance d traveled during 1 g acceleration (a) for 312 days is :

d = 1/2 a t^2 = 3*10^15 meters

The work done is W = mad = 3*10^22 Joules

Hydrogen gets 240 kcalories per mole

So the Hydrogen fuel tank is a 2 km cube that weighs ten million times as much as the ship. To accelerate the fuel tank takes more fuel and more oxygen tanks. It seems impractical, even without the relativistic increase in mass.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 8, 2016, 11:06:32 PM9/8/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Your smarter than you look!

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 9, 2016, 11:09:10 PM9/9/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Also, this may also come as a surpise to you're virgin hears but it is not physically possible to determine the distance to a distance star.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 10, 2016, 6:46:27 AM9/10/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Friday, September 9, 2016 at 9:09:10 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Also, this may also come as a surpise to you're virgin hears but it is not
> physically possible to determine the distance to a distance star.

So you've never heard of parallax?

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 10, 2016, 5:39:44 PM9/10/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Have you heard of a planisphere?

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 10, 2016, 7:44:09 PM9/10/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Saturday, September 10, 2016 at 3:39:44 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Have you heard of a planisphere?

So you are a troll. I thought so.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 11, 2016, 3:45:46 PM9/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Modern astronomers uses parallax to determine the distance to a star utilizing the distance of the earth's orbital diameter and a change in the position of the star. Example, the distance to Alpha Centauri is determined using the change in the position of a star after the observer propagates the distance of the earth's orbital diameter that is transversed in a six month time interval but since the advent of photography (116 years), the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere). A stellar photograph taken in 1900 can be found to match exactly the stellar photograph taken in 2016 using the same equipment. In addition, the Big Dipper's shape has not changed in the past 116 years yet the change in the position of a star (parallax), is used to determine the distance to a star. In the determination of the distance to Alpha Centauri, using parallax, the entire celestial universe shifts which is cause by the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions. The background stellar universe, of a planisphere, is stationary since the adjustable elliptical viewing celestial range of the planisphere is dependent on the time and location of the observer based on a stationary stellar universe. If the stars of the stellar universe represented a measurable distances, a star 4.22 light years from the earth would move at a higher rate than the star 1.3 billion light years from the earth but experimentally all of the stars of the celestial universe shift at the same rate because the celestial universe is stationary. The same method of deception that ancient scientist used to justify that the earth was the center of the universe is used determine the distance to a distance star.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 11, 2016, 8:07:01 PM9/11/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
You're not REALLY this stupid, are you? The orbit of the earth is
insignificant compared to the distance to the faraway background stars.
Please don't embarrass yourself any further, you paint a bad picture
of the human race.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2016, 3:29:30 PM9/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse

The orbit of the earth is insignificant compared to the distance to the faraway background stars. Gary Harnagel

______________________________________________________


Henceforth, the celestial universe is stationary, comparatively speaking. Then how do you measure the distance to a star? Using parallax. Ahh, old chap.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 14, 2016, 4:17:31 PM9/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Are you web-incompetent?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

Now don't you feel stupid for not looking this up yourself, helpless one?

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2016, 4:30:31 PM9/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder


This link describes Parallax but like YOU said the stellar motion is comparatively stationary. Providing a link does not justify your argument that parallax requires a motion of the stellar universe. I kinda feel sorry for you that sinking feeling that your life is just parallax.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 14, 2016, 4:38:39 PM9/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 2:30:31 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder
>
>
> This link describes Parallax but like YOU said the stellar motion is
> comparatively stationary. Providing a link does not justify your argument
> that parallax requires a motion of the stellar universe.

My, but you prove yourself to be amazingly stupid! Do you even have an
INKLING of what a "ladder" is, incompetent fool?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder#Standard_candles

Are you so enfeebled that you have to be spoon-fed?

> I kinda feel sorry for you that sinking feeling that your life is just
> parallax.

Feel sorry for yourself, stupid troll.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 14, 2016, 7:20:23 PM9/14/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
Dear Gary Haragnel,


You must state in your own words why is disagree since the links that you provide include numerous theories. State which theory and a brief argument in it defense of the said theories or shut up.


Thank you.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 15, 2016, 7:05:13 AM9/15/16
to
Why this is marked as abuse? It has been marked as abuse.
Report not abuse
On Wednesday, September 14, 2016 at 5:20:23 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Dear Gary Haragnel,
>
>
> You must state in your own words why is disagree since the links that you
> provide include numerous theories.

No, I "must" not do so, particularly when you don't have enough brain
power to understand.

And, no, it's not different "theories": it's different experimental
techniques applied to different distance regimes.

> State which theory and a brief argument in it defense of the said theories
> or shut up.
>
> Thank you.

Go pound sand up your butt until it fills that vacant spot called your head.
If you can't understand the wiki page then why in the world would you
understand what I say? You are just a stupid troll.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 15, 2016, 6:10:00 PM9/15/16
to
Dear Mr. Drool,


According to your link, parallax is caused by the change in the position of a star but since the stellar universe is stationary one cannot use parallax to determine the distance to a star. The change in the position of a star, used in the parallax method, is produced by the earth's daily and yearly motions since the stationary stellar universe can be used to determine the time; example, on Feb 14 of the years 1947, 1956, 1973 and 1977, the celestial universe at 12:00am is exactly the same and you can set your watch on it which is similar to using a planisphere in the opposite manner. Usually a planisphere is used to determine the position of the star at a given time and day but the planispere could also be used to determine the time by aligning the star to the time and day then reading the time. The method of deception using the earth yearly and daily motions was used by ancient scientists to justify the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system. I know that all this my come as a surprise to you but history often repeats itself and the fact the physicist are attempting to use the earth daily and yearly motions to justify the distances to a star is not unexpected. We as human are not that particularly smart but try to know everything when in fact we know very little since human are terrified of the unknown, for good reason since the unknown is extremely dangerous but yield great value. I got to the extremely dangerous part but have yet to achieve that part regarding great value but maybe I am overlooking what I have. There are time we are great but we always recede back into our past mistakes. Its time to face up to the facts.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 15, 2016, 11:18:06 PM9/15/16
to
On Thursday, September 15, 2016 at 4:10:00 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [The stupidest nonsense to date caused by a purgative]

Pure gobbledegook

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2016, 9:07:02 PM9/16/16
to



"In Rømer's day, a large number of accurately mapped reference stars were
available that enabled accurate synchronization of pendulum clocks to sidereal
time all year round." Homolog Sep 14

____________________________________________________


Homolog has confirmed the stationary universe because the stationary universe can be used to synchronize a clock all year round.




numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 16, 2016, 10:12:18 PM9/16/16
to
Modern astronomers uses parallax to determine the distance to a star utilizing the change in the position of the star but the stellar universe is stationary. Example, on Feb 14 of the years 1930, 1959, 1975 and 1977, the celestial universe at 12:00 am is exactly the same. For any single day of any year, at the same time, the celestial universe is exactly the same which is experimental proof the stellar universe is stationary and the distances of the stars have been fabricated, using parallax.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 3:42:15 AM9/17/16
to

Sep 16 numbernu...@gmail.com wrote;

> Modern astronomers uses parallax to determine the distance to a star utilizing the change in the position of the star but the stellar universe is stationary. Example, on Feb 14 of the years 1930, 1959, 1975 and 1977, the celestial universe at 12:00 am is exactly the same. For any single day of any year, at the same time, the celestial universe is exactly the same which is experimental proof the stellar universe is stationary and the distances of the stars have been fabricated, using parallax.

You never heard of proper motion? Look it up and report back.

You just don't know what you don't know. Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars. You just don't get it...

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 3:09:06 PM9/17/16
to
"Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal.

______________________________________________________


Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 3:40:18 PM9/17/16
to
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 1:09:06 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > "Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close
> > stars"--pnal.
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary.

Your absurd assertion is patent baloney since everyone (but you) knows
that stars are in motion.

> In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily
> motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar
> universe is stationary (planisphere).

In addition you prove yourself to be an abject moron and a blithering idiot.
Your grasp of reality is virtually nonexistent.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 3:59:11 PM9/17/16
to



"Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal.

______________________________________________________


Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar universe to determine the time for every single night of the year. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the measurement of the star is a diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).














Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 5:50:23 PM9/17/16
to
Still taking your stupid pills, I see.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 6:15:36 PM9/17/16
to

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 9:44:28 PM9/17/16
to
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:09:06 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal.
>
> ______________________________________________________
>
>
> Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the tellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

Your words indicate that you haven't a clue about what you speak. Not too smart to come to a relativity group and pretend that you are knowledgeable, although you are far from alone in this regard.

The *apparent* proper motion of relatively close stars against the much further away background stars over the course of 6 months is how parallax works. There isn't necessarily any actual motion at all, other than that of the Earth as it orbits the Sun.

Regarding the Bradley stellar aberration effect, your statement is a little bizarre, and again indicates that you are talking through your hat. Read this...

http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm

... and learn something new today.

You are living proof that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 10:18:37 PM9/17/16
to
numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>"Parallax is not "Parallaxwhat you think it is, and only works for fairly
close
>stars"--pnal.

>______________________________________________________


>Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is
>stationary.

Why would you claim that? All stars including the sun are moving relative
to each other as they have their own paths through the galaxy and orbit
its center.

Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed". Others are closer
and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars. Look up
proper motion. We can also detect redshift or blueshift in their
spectral lines. There is one star (forget its name) that is dozens of
light years away but heading almost straight toward us, in many thousands
of years it will pass as close as a light year away from us.

>In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily
> motions

Congratulations. You just discovered Parallax. If we plot the position
of a close star against the distant stars over the period of a year,
it will appear to move in a tiny ellipse. This is caused by the earth's
orbital motion, not any motion of the star (however its proper motion
has to be dealt with separately). The size of the ellipse tells
us how close the star is, the further away it is the smaller the ellipse
until you consider the distant stars whose ellipse is too small to
measure.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 17, 2016, 11:42:35 PM9/17/16
to
On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 7:18:37 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:

> There is one star (forget its name) that is dozens of
> light years away but heading almost straight toward us, in many thousands
> of years it will pass as close as a light year away from us.

Here you go...

http://www.universetoday.com/117778/rogue-star-hip-85605-on-collision-course-with-our-solar-system-but-earthlings-need-not-worry/

... also, it has possibly happened before...

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/alien-star-missed-us-less-light-year-scientists-say-n307996

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 3:45:09 PM9/18/16
to
"There isn't necessarily any actual motion at all, other than that of the Earth as it orbits the Sun."---AL

__________________________________________________



Very good Al!

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 3:59:10 PM9/18/16
to
"Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed". Others are closer
and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars." Moroney

____________________________________________________________________________



My complete apologies but the stellar universe is stationary which is why a planisphere works so well. If the stellar universe was in motion the closest stars would moved at a different rate than the farthest stars and the planisphere would not function. I well like my phanisphere yet I yet to accurately use it. So I am not completely sure it works. I fact it my not work and your theory that the stellar universe is in motion may in fact be valid. I am waiting for the full moon to past and then will initiate my phanispere experiment to verify my stationary universe theory. My deepest regrets that I am contradicting your dearest and beloved theoretical stories. It makes me really sad to think that I have taken away or trying to taken away something that is associated with the years of your life. When my dog die I was also extremely heart broken and cried since I love her very much; henceforth, I apology for making you feel defensive and I completely understand your attitude. LOVE ben

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 6:42:10 PM9/18/16
to
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 12:59:10 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed". Others are closer
> and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars." Moroney
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> My complete apologies but the stellar universe is stationary which is why a planisphere works so well. If the stellar universe was in motion the closest stars would moved at a different rate than the farthest stars and the planisphere would not function. I well like my phanisphere yet I yet to accurately use it. So I am not completely sure it works. I fact it my not work and your theory that the stellar universe is in motion may in fact be valid...

It is clear that you really don't understand stellar parallax. Go here...

http://tinyurl.com/zofb8vx

... and watch as many of these videos as it takes for you to understand.

You cannot just go out to a dark moonless sky and ever expect to see these tiny apparent motions, they are absolutely minuscule, and not even worth talking about when discussing visual astronomy. You need very accurate measuring devices and advanced optical systems to measure parallax.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 7:09:59 PM9/18/16
to
"You cannot just go out to a dark moonless sky and ever expect to see these tiny apparent motions, they are absolutely minuscule, and not even worth talking about when discussing visual astronomy. You need very accurate measuring devices and advanced optical systems to measure parallax."---pnal.

_____________________________________________________________________



Completely untrue, if the stellar universe was in motion the planisphere would not function. You're motions are formed by the earth daily and yearly motions.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 7:24:15 PM9/18/16
to
Huh? Wherever did you get the idea that I said the 'stellar universe' was in motion? It is, of course, but only over very large time scales...

I'm talking, naturally, about the apparent motions caused by parallax! It is completely true that you cannot possibly see those motions naked-eye. You cannot detect them through your telescope. They are TINY, less than the apparent diameter of a star, and even then it takes a full 6 months to detect.

I think that perhaps your English comprehension is causing you problems here...

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 9:57:11 PM9/18/16
to
numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>"Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed". Others are closer
>and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars." Moroney

>____________________________________________________________________________



>My complete apologies but the stellar universe is stationary which is
>why a planisphere works so well. If the stellar universe was in motion
>the closest stars would moved at a different rate than the farthest stars
>and the planisphere would not function.

Better start saving your pennies now because in a few thousand years, your
beloved planisphere will become obsolete and you'll have to buy a new one.
Don't get too familiar with the constellations as well, because in tens of
thousands of years, they will be unrecognizable because of the proper
motion of all the stars with respect to us.

And the closest stars do move at a different rate than the farthest stars,
which is how we even know they are the closest stars.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 10:04:31 PM9/18/16
to


And the closest stars do move at a different rate than the farthest stars,
which is how we even know they are the closest stars.

__________________________________________________________________


Explain the planisphere. You cannot tell if a star is far away or just plain dim. I must be true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. How old are you anyways??















numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 10:22:26 PM9/18/16
to
The red and blue shifts prove the stellar universe is stationary since at different times and positions, every star in the celestial universe forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 10:28:19 PM9/18/16
to
That not true because even if the stellar universe was in motion both the red and blue shift would occur.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 18, 2016, 10:31:28 PM9/18/16
to
The Lunar lander experiment, the expansion theory based on only the red shift and Huygens measurement of the velocity of light, the ether, composed of matter. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on induction that is not luminous. Poynting wire is not luminous. I can think a all sort of sort of shit and you guys see none of it. I cannot believe how stupid you people are.

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 12:07:03 AM9/19/16
to
On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 7:22:26 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> The red and blue shifts prove the stellar universe is stationary since at different times and positions, every star in the celestial universe forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary.

Forget about red and blue shifts, they are essentially meaningless when applied to stars in our galaxy. They are important ONLY for galaxies external to our own.

Your planisphere is fine and will serve you well for hundreds of years. Even Barnard's Star, the star with the highest proper motion known, assuming that it is shown at all on your planisphere, will be correct, as far as you are concerned. The motions of stars in our galaxy will be completely unobservable to you over your lifetime. No worries.

We see stars in our sky because either they are very bright or they are very close, or, in some cases, like Sirius or Vega (and others), both.

I think you are not understanding the word 'stationary"...

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 11:04:38 AM9/19/16
to
It seems rather obvious you don't know what red and blue shifts even are.
A stationary star would show neither a red nor a blue shift. That some
stars show a blue shift shows they are approaching us, ones with a red
shift are receding from us. In addition, there is proper motion where
the "sideways" motion of the stars can be seen.

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 11:06:07 AM9/19/16
to
numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

>That not true because even if the stellar universe was in motion both
>the red and blue shift would occur.

Which is exactly what is observed. Some stars have a red shift, others
have a blue shift. Thanks for proving my point.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 6:30:28 PM9/19/16
to
Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar universe to determine the time. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a star is a diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

Michael Moroney

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 10:48:41 PM9/19/16
to
numbernu...@gmail.com writes:

<snip crap>

Repeating the same falsehoods over and over again doesn't make them true.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 10:52:55 PM9/19/16
to
He is a stupid, ignorant, foolish, abusive troll. He could e doing
something important with his life but he chooses to be an ignoramus.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 19, 2016, 10:55:14 PM9/19/16
to

pnal...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 20, 2016, 1:39:03 AM9/20/16
to
On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 3:30:28 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar universe to determine the time. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a star is a diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

You appear to have the brains of a mud fence...

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 20, 2016, 12:13:47 PM9/20/16
to


Certaintly it may be true but your statement regarding a stellar universe that is in motion is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar universe to determine the time. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a star is a diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 20, 2016, 5:18:03 PM9/20/16
to
"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).




numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 21, 2016, 2:38:28 PM9/21/16
to
What if comparatively the stellar universe was stationary? It would similar to Harvard's sugar fraud. How many peoples lives did Harvard destroy?

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 21, 2016, 5:55:27 PM9/21/16
to
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:38:28 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What if comparatively the stellar universe was stationary?

It's not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_1061

"The star was first cataloged in 1919 by German astronomer Max Wolf when he
published a list of dim stars that had high proper motions."

Of course, an ignoramus like you has no clue as to what "proper motion" means.

> It would similar to Harvard's sugar fraud. How many peoples lives did
> Harvard destroy?

Irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

akasha...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 22, 2016, 4:30:12 PM9/22/16
to
"Like many red dwarfs, it most likely has a long rotation period of more than 100 days, although it is difficult to measure accurately."
___________________________

More like impossible to measure accurately.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 23, 2016, 5:38:45 PM9/23/16
to
Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

Gary Harnagel

unread,
Sep 23, 2016, 11:41:51 PM9/23/16
to
On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 3:38:45 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the
> star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409)
> but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based
> telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon.

You really don't have a clue, ignoramus.

> For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon
> would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters;

Irrelevant.

> consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet
> 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter
> equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently,
> the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves
> between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the
> existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima
> Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

Nope. It proves that you are stupider than dirt.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 26, 2016, 7:03:52 PM9/26/16
to
But Michelson experiment is negative right?

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 28, 2016, 3:17:10 PM9/28/16
to
Sorry, on vacation...using Robo insertion program X2j.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Sep 30, 2016, 4:03:42 PM9/30/16
to
Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 1, 2016, 3:54:32 PM10/1/16
to
love, peace and hair hippie chicks

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 3, 2016, 7:01:13 PM10/3/16
to
CHilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 7, 2016, 2:04:42 PM10/7/16
to
dfdf

numbernu...@gmail.com

unread,
Oct 9, 2016, 2:41:33 PM10/9/16
to
Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima Centauri planet observation is a hoax.
0 new messages