Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #583369 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-04-19 08:33 -0700 |
| Last post | 2022-04-26 10:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 08:33 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? patdolan <patdolan@comcast.net> - 2022-04-19 09:12 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 09:36 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 17:05 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2022-04-19 10:40 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 11:09 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 16:09 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 17:16 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 19:56 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-19 23:26 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-19 22:40 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-19 23:39 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-04-20 11:22 +0200
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-20 10:24 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-20 10:54 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-20 11:17 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-21 19:02 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 16:17 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-21 23:04 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-21 23:21 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 00:01 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-22 15:10 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 14:08 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-22 18:33 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-22 20:47 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-22 21:24 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 23:42 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-23 21:57 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:03 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-23 08:11 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-22 15:16 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 09:40 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 16:52 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-21 11:47 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-21 21:59 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-21 13:23 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 11:08 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-21 12:01 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 12:43 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 21:07 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 14:47 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 22:01 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 15:22 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 00:26 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 22:23 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 12:10 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 08:43 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 16:28 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 10:07 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 18:15 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 11:52 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 14:00 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Kye Egonidis <qliz@xuelxjxk.io> - 2022-04-22 21:07 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 14:13 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Kye Egonidis <qliz@xuelxjxk.io> - 2022-04-22 21:20 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 15:23 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Kye Egonidis <qliz@xuelxjxk.io> - 2022-04-22 22:31 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 21:16 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-22 15:25 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 19:39 +0000
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 12:51 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-21 23:27 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-04-21 21:23 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-04-21 18:59 -0400
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-21 11:53 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 16:14 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-22 16:22 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 07:31 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-04-24 09:50 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-24 20:40 -0700
Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2022-04-26 10:19 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 00:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05238d09-c5e0-4874-86bd-f5499e48bd39n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583696 |
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:21:20 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > >> -- > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > >> and challenge > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > is not a planet... > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > They just made it up. > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. Ceres, what remains of the 5th. protoplanet in the main asteroid belt, has a mass of about 9.1E+20Kg. This account for more than 1/3 of the total mass of the main asteroid belt. This could be a dwarf planet, having about 2/3 the mass of the Moon. Pluto, instead, has a mass of about 1.3E+22 Kg, which is about 20 times lower than Mercury's mass. Not such a dwarf planet. Mass (Kg) Sun 1,99E+30 (MONSTER. 95% of the total mass) Mercury 3,30E+23 (Einstein's pet planet) Venus 4,87E+24 (Alien planet. Rotates in the clockwise direction, as viewed from Earth. All others rotate counter-clockwise). Earth 5,97E+24 (Not a planet. Center of the Universe) Mars 6,42E+23 Ceres 9.1E+20 (Dwarf?) Jupiter 1,90E+27 (GIANT) Saturn 5,68E+26 (GIANT) Uranus 8,68E+25 (GIANT) Neptune 1,02E+26 (GIANT) Pluto 1,31E+22 (Orbit not aligned to the Sun's equatorial plane. Orbit's tilt is about 20° above that plane. Punished for that). All the planets in the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anticlockwise direction, as viewed from above Earth's North Pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 15:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t3uujj$1io9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583699 |
On 4/22/2022 3:01 AM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > Ceres, what remains of the 5th. protoplanet in the main asteroid belt, has a mass of about 9.1E+20Kg. This account > for more than 1/3 of the total mass of the main asteroid belt. > > This could be a dwarf planet, having about 2/3 the mass of the Moon. No. About 1/78 the mass of the moon. > > Pluto, instead, has a mass of about 1.3E+22 Kg, which is about 20 times lower than Mercury's mass. Not such a dwarf planet. > > Mass (Kg) > > Sun 1,99E+30 (MONSTER. 95% of the total mass) More than that. > > Mercury 3,30E+23 (Einstein's pet planet) > Venus 4,87E+24 (Alien planet. Rotates in the clockwise direction, as viewed from Earth. All others rotate counter-clockwise). > Earth 5,97E+24 (Not a planet. Center of the Universe) > Mars 6,42E+23 > Ceres 9.1E+20 (Dwarf?) > Jupiter 1,90E+27 (GIANT) > Saturn 5,68E+26 (GIANT) > Uranus 8,68E+25 (GIANT) > Neptune 1,02E+26 (GIANT) > Pluto 1,31E+22 (Orbit not aligned to the Sun's equatorial plane. Orbit's tilt is about 20° above that plane. Punished for that). No, it had not cleared its orbit. Just before the "demotion", astronomers discovered one or two nearly Pluto-sized Kuiper belt Trans-Neptunian Objects. When they realized that Pluto was itself a Kuiper Belt object, as possibly was Neptune's moon Triton a former Kuiper Belt object, they realized there could be dozens to possibly thousands of objects as large or larger than Pluto, and therefore just as worthy as being a planet as Pluto, they decided to have mercy on millions of future elementary school students and created a new category of "dwarf planets" so they wouldn't have to memorize dozens or hundreds of planet names. So far, only one, Eris (as well as Triton) are known to be more massive than Pluto. As many as 130 objects are "probably" dwarf planets by being in hydrostatic equilibrium according to astronomer Mike Brown who studies those things. Not the first time that happened. Ceres itself was once considered a planet and even has an astrological sign. Question: Should Eris, slightly larger than Pluto, be a planet if Pluto is a planet? If no, why not? > > All the planets in the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anticlockwise direction, as viewed from above Earth's North Pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet. What about Uranus, which rotates sideways? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fc5170a4-ee6a-44ea-b4fd-e46d6962f7cen@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583734 |
On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:10:51 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: <snip> > What about Uranus, which rotates sideways? Maybe your expertise by being a frequent client of gay bars is fooling your head. Besides, fact-check the stupidity about the mass of Ceres that you posted, ignorant pretender. Drop Wikipedia! https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/by-the-numbers/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 18:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t3vafb$477$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583753 |
On 4/22/2022 5:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:10:51 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > <snip> > >> What about Uranus, which rotates sideways? > > Maybe your expertise by being a frequent client of gay bars is fooling your head. So does Uranus rotate clockwise or counterclockwise? And skip the playground grade insults. > > Besides, fact-check the stupidity about the mass of Ceres that you posted, ignorant pretender. Drop Wikipedia! > > https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/by-the-numbers/ > That matches the mass in Wikipedia, but I didn't use Wikipedia. The mass of the moon is 7.35x10^22 kg vs. Ceres 9.47x10^20 kg. I'll let you do the math. But you do a *really* piss poor job at researching things, not just this but lots about Einstein and relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 20:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626376B7.3B84@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583696 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > >>> > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > >> -- > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > >> and challenge > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > is not a planet... > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > They just made it up. Hell, they made up everything! The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, eight planets in the solar system." The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be considered. Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this question." "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just now as entering the session." The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired outcome of the rogue scientists. These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire astronomical institution." The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great job. A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <62637F7E.6ED8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583778 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > > >> and challenge > > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > > is not a planet... > > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > > > They just made it up. > > Hell, they made up everything! > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, > eight planets in the solar system." > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be > considered. > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this > question." > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just > now as entering the session." > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired > outcome of the rogue scientists. > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire > astronomical institution." > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great > job. > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting... https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 23:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c3d8b298-de4e-4921-b646-5254eaf8c4e0n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583782 |
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:24:01 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > > > >> and challenge > > > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > > > is not a planet... > > > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > > > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > > > > > They just made it up. > > > > Hell, they made up everything! > > > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which > > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The > > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet > > > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, > > eight planets in the solar system." > > > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of > > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. > > > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New > > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research > > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." > > > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. > > > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when > > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. > > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU > > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior > > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be > > considered. > > > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the > > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a > > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this > > question." > > > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work > > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is > > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." > > > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and > > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he > > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to > > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by > > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not > > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just > > now as entering the session." > > > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in > > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were > > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired > > outcome of the rogue scientists. > > > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote > > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be > > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire > > astronomical institution." > > > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no > > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great > > job. > > > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an > > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. > > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. > Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting... > > https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. Einstein's worshipers, all of them. Most making money with books, conferences, MSM or monetizing on YouTube. Neil deGrasse Tyson was one that vote against. He even laughed about it when appeared on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory. The asshole pollutes YT with his videoclips, making a lot of $$ and indoctrinating about Einstein and his fucking relativity. A hundred videos, or more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-23 21:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6264D8A6.3368@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583782 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > > > >> and challenge > > > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > > > is not a planet... > > > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > > > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > > > > > They just made it up. > > > > Hell, they made up everything! > > > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which > > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The > > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet > > > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, > > eight planets in the solar system." > > > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of > > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. > > > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New > > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research > > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." > > > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. > > > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when > > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. > > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU > > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior > > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be > > considered. > > > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the > > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a > > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this > > question." > > > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work > > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is > > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." > > > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and > > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he > > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to > > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by > > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not > > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just > > now as entering the session." > > > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in > > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were > > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired > > outcome of the rogue scientists. > > > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote > > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be > > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire > > astronomical institution." > > > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no > > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great > > job. > > > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an > > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. > > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. > > Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting... > > https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg A movement by prominent scientists to organize an electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed not because they weren't smart enough, but simply they weren't...tough enough. There is only one way to handle a union boss IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers.. Where's Hoffa? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-26 10:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <626825D2.771D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583872 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > > > > >> -- > > > > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > > > > >> and challenge > > > > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > > > > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > > > > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > > > > is not a planet... > > > > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > > > > > > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > > > > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > > > > > > > They just made it up. > > > > > > Hell, they made up everything! > > > > > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which > > > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The > > > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet > > > > > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, > > > eight planets in the solar system." > > > > > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of > > > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. > > > > > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New > > > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research > > > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." > > > > > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. > > > > > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when > > > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. > > > > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU > > > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior > > > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be > > > considered. > > > > > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the > > > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a > > > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this > > > question." > > > > > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work > > > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is > > > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." > > > > > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and > > > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he > > > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to > > > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by > > > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not > > > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just > > > now as entering the session." > > > > > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in > > > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were > > > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired > > > outcome of the rogue scientists. > > > > > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote > > > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be > > > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire > > > astronomical institution." > > > > > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no > > > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great > > > job. > > > > > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an > > > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. > > > > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. > > > > Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting... > > > > https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg > > A movement by prominent scientists to organize an electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed not > because they weren't smart enough, but simply they weren't...tough enough. > > There is only one way to handle a union boss IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers.. > > Where's Hoffa? So, if you ask IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers 'what is the definition of a planet' he's tell you... "There is no correct answer to this question." Translation: "GO FUCK YOURSELF!" > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-23 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdbd1d22-19fc-426e-b6e1-78d4ded07062n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583778 |
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 12:46:36 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > > > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >> The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the > > > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the > > > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International > > > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> The votes are rigged. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and > > > > > >>> belongs in the trash can. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> you should know dis by now. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the > > > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they > > > > > >>> kill him. > > > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth > > > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) > > > > > >> -- > > > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > > > > > >> and challenge > > > > > >> the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > > > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > > > > > > > > > > [snip meltdown] > > > > > > > > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since > > > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared > > > > > of objects other than themselves. > > > > > > > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile. > > > > > > > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour). > > > > > > Jupiter not a planet? > > > > > > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth > > > is not a planet... > > > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe. > > > > Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto > > not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed. > > > > They just made it up. > Hell, they made up everything! > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially, > eight planets in the solar system." > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague. > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted." > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com. > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained. > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be > considered. > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this > question." > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on." > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just > now as entering the session." > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired > outcome of the rogue scientists. > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire > astronomical institution." > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great > job. > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed. > > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank. > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, > and challenge > the unchallengeable. International Astronomical Union (IAU) 9,000 members. Only 5% are active participants. At its 2006 General Assembly in Prague, it redefined a planet as: “A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.” International Relativity Association (IRA) 250,000 members. Only 1% are active participants. At its 2011 General Assembly in Princeton, it redefined relativity as: “A wet dream of a new age philosopher, which becomes real only when you are sleeping, and think that Einstein did beat Newton and time is actually what your clock shows.”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-22 15:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t3uutu$1n5j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583503 |
On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote: >> The Starmaker wrote: >>> >>> Richard Hertz wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises: >>> >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)... >>> >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU). >>> >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent. >>> >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International >>> Astronomical Union (IAU). >>> >>> The votes are rigged. >>> >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes. >>> >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and >>> belongs in the trash can. >>> >>> you should know dis by now. >>> >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the >>> IAU members, except the big guy.) >>> >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they >>> kill him. >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare) >> -- >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, >> and challenge >> the unchallengeable. > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason. > > **************************************** > The International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of a dwarf planet because it did not meet the three criteria the IAU uses to define a full-sized planet. Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects.”Nov 19, 2019 > ************************** > > Ever wondered why Pluto is no longer a planet? > As we approach an international holiday known as Pluto Demoted Day, an expert explains why the dwarf planet is still super cool. > Image without a caption > By Jason Bittel > August 23, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. EDT > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/pluto-not-a-planet/2021/08/23/ae8fd57c-fbb8-11eb-8a67-f14cd1d28e47_story.html > > "When your parents were kids, Pluto was actually considered a planet. But 15 years ago, a group of scientists known as the International Astronomical Union voted to make the definition of “planets” more specific, and Pluto no longer made the cut. According to the IAU, Pluto is technically a “dwarf planet,” because it has not “cleared its neighboring region of other objects.” This means that Pluto still has lots of asteroids and other space rocks along its flight path, rather than having absorbed them over time, like the larger planets have done." > > **************************************** > > Mafia? And Ceres, in the Main asteroid belt? > > Einstenian mafia, pure and simple. They don't dare to apply GR 200+ equations beyond Mercury, because all > of them are relativistic FAGGOTS, like Moroney (and I have some doubts about Bodkin, in this particular sense.) Another meltdown coming on? They have calculated orbital precession as far as Mars. However, Venus' orbit is nearly circular, plus further from the sun, both reduce the GR precession. Earth also has a near circular orbit and is even farther from the sun. Mars is even farther out but less circular. If you can handle the math, why not calculate GR's predictions for precession for all the planets >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 09:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aabacd2f-3ad7-4579-b4cf-428560e5f41en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583369 |
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created > about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple > questions arise: > > 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can > be related to this Sun of our days). > > 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and > Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”? > > Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from > the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation > > d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5 > > This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows: > > Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU) > Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4 > Venus 0 0.72 0.7 > Earth 1 1.00 1.0 > Mars 2 1.52 1.6 > ? 3 > Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2 > Saturn 5 9.54 10.0 > Uranus 6 19.18 19.6 > Neptune 7 30.06 38.8 > > Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created. The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years. As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one. In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount. About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume as H atoms (to start with something above protons). It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³. HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear astrophysics can explain this. BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 16:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t3s24c$1uk2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583608 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: >> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created >> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple >> questions arise: >> >> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can >> be related to this Sun of our days). >> >> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and >> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”? >> >> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from >> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation >> >> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5 >> >> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows: >> >> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU) >> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4 >> Venus 0 0.72 0.7 >> Earth 1 1.00 1.0 >> Mars 2 1.52 1.6 >> ? 3 >> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2 >> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0 >> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6 >> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8 >> >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? > > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems > (and when) was created. > > The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years. > > As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume > of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one. > > In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about > 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount. > > About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume > as H atoms (to start with something above protons). > > It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³. > > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius > of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? > > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic > distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? > > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? > > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% > of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. > > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear > astrophysics can explain this. > > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at > you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave > some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. > > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A > RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. > > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for > free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand. > > Nice trolling. But consider that stellar formation and gas cloud gravitational collapse is astrophysics, not really cosmology, and does not GR for a treatment. As such, it’s a little off topic here. Perhaps you could take the astrophysics question to sci.physics or sci.astronomy or someplace of more general physics interest. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 11:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? |
| Message-ID | <6261A6B2.24D0@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583611 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created > >> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple > >> questions arise: > >> > >> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can > >> be related to this Sun of our days). > >> > >> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and > >> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law� > >> > >> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from > >> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation > >> > >> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5 > >> > >> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows: > >> > >> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU) > >> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4 > >> Venus 0 0.72 0.7 > >> Earth 1 1.00 1.0 > >> Mars 2 1.52 1.6 > >> ? 3 > >> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2 > >> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0 > >> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6 > >> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8 > >> > >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? > > > > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems > > (and when) was created. > > > > The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years. > > > > As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume > > of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one. > > > > In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about > > 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount. > > > > About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume > > as H atoms (to start with something above protons). > > > > It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³. > > > > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius > > of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? > > > > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic > > distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? > > > > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? > > > > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% > > of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. > > > > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear > > astrophysics can explain this. > > > > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at > > you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started > > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave > > some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN > > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. > > > > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A > > RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. > > > > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for > > free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand. > > > > > > Nice trolling. > > But consider that stellar formation and gas cloud gravitational collapse is > astrophysics, not really cosmology, and does not GR for a treatment. As > such, it’s a little off topic here. Perhaps you could take the astrophysics > question to sci.physics or sci.astronomy or someplace of more general > physics interest. > > -- > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables In other words, the odd bodkin is telling you to GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY NEWSGROUP MOTHERFUCKERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 21:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? |
| Message-ID | <6262361A.15AA@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583611 |
Odd Bodkin wrote: > > Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > >> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created > >> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple > >> questions arise: > >> > >> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can > >> be related to this Sun of our days). > >> > >> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and > >> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law� > >> > >> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from > >> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation > >> > >> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5 > >> > >> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows: > >> > >> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU) > >> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4 > >> Venus 0 0.72 0.7 > >> Earth 1 1.00 1.0 > >> Mars 2 1.52 1.6 > >> ? 3 > >> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2 > >> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0 > >> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6 > >> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8 > >> > >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? > > > > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems > > (and when) was created. > > > > The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years. > > > > As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume > > of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one. > > > > In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about > > 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount. > > > > About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume > > as H atoms (to start with something above protons). > > > > It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³. > > > > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius > > of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? > > > > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic > > distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? > > > > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? > > > > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% > > of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. > > > > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear > > astrophysics can explain this. > > > > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at > > you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started > > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave > > some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN > > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. > > > > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A > > RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. > > > > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for > > free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand. > > > > > > Nice trolling. > > But consider that stellar formation and gas cloud gravitational collapse is > astrophysics, not really cosmology, and does not GR for a treatment. As > such, it’s a little off topic here. Perhaps you could take the astrophysics > question to sci.physics or sci.astronomy or someplace of more general > physics interest. Well, this is a Relativity newsgroup... and you are always pushing...textbooks.. what about How Einstein Created Relativity out of Physics and Astronomy https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Created-Relativity-Astronomy-Astrophysics/dp/146144781X https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Created-Relativity-Astronomy-Astrophysics-ebook-dp-B00A9YH7L2/dp/B00A9YH7L2/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid= no need to spend over hundreds bucks the pdf is available for free -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 13:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <t3s3un$s4k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583608 |
On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? > > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created. That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to sci.astro or something. > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? Again, cosmology or astrophysics. > > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? > > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics. > > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics questions. > > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR. > > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. > > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. > > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand. > Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical professional can tell for certain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 11:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <094b57a5-3d50-4095-a5b5-c127f30eba4cn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583615 |
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: > > >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? > > > > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created. > That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to > sci.astro or something. > > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? > Again, cosmology or astrophysics. > > > > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? > > > > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? > Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics. > > > > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. > It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But > better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics > questions. > > > > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. > Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR. > > > > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started > > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN > > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. > > > > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. > > > > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand. > > > Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder > meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical > professional can tell for certain. I simplified the terms I've used on the previous post: Astrophysics, nuclear physics, cosmology, general relativity, etc. All of these fields currently spin around GR derivations, along the years. If GR is used to give an "explanation" of the BB outcome, supporting the narrative of a 14 billion years old universe, or how to be patched with dark matter&energy, to explain the constitution of the universe, OR how black energy is being used as ANTIGRAVITY FORCE to explain ALLEGED universe acceleration of its expansion, ALL THESE SHITTY theories are centered on HOW TO USE GR main equation (with its cosmological constant correction) and how to use the 200+ non-linear equations by LINEARIZING them in some way: All of this is centered on the same single shit, and is that Einstein's GR provided a framework under which the birth, existence and fate of the universe is EXPLAINED (fucking imbeciles!). Moroney and Bodkin: you can try to divert the attention about my main objective here, but you both fail, proving once again that you both are a fucking pair of ignorant, indoctrinated trolls/shills. None of you can provide a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System was created. Even less about WHEN it happened. Not to mention about the alleged creation of our galaxy 5 billion years ago. You know nothing. Space sciences know nothing. The only thing that have in common is TO HYPE einstenians theory, one way or another. Not now, nor in 1,000 years, the mechanisms of GOD will be revealed to the arrogant humans, which are less than microbes in the general scenario of the God's created universe. And, finally, your pathetic support to measurements of AGE by half-time life of heavy radioactive isotopes, that went from C-14 (20,000 years) to uranium (2,000 million years) makes God smile. Imbecile cretins, with the same lineage of those that support light-based atomic clocks with femtosecond resolution. As if would be possible to measure time in both extremes with the slightest physical sense. LEARN how age of samples is CALCULATED, just calculated. LEARN how TIME LAPSES of femtoseconds are CALCULATED by using heterodyne methods to lower light frequencies about 1,000,000 times to the microwave region, so regular digital counters can be used. LEARN about those methods, think about them, and then come here and discuss about accuracy and precision. You are being played by a bunch of cretin useless eaters, located in 12 places around the world (G-7 countries + Western China), which are less than 150 cretins being used by MSM hosts to perpetuate myths. For instance, Tom Roberts is convinced that a gravitational clock shift is measured, by using light clocks, down to the height of 1 cm. Roberts probably doesn't know the impossibility of such alleged measurement. Should start with the weight of the equipment, and follow with the tries to measure 1 femtosecond. But what he could know. He's not an EE, neither Bodkin or Moroney.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 12:01 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Tricky questions: How old is each planet? What happened with the 5th. planet? |
| Message-ID | <6261A9FF.362E@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #583627 |
Richard Hertz wrote: > > None of you can provide a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System was created. Even less about WHEN it happened. > Not to mention about the alleged creation of our galaxy 5 billion years ago. I already answered a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System was created...'In the beggining, God created ...The Heavens AND the Earth'. The Heavens AND the Earth is a solar system! I have SIMPLE explanations to any questions you might have. Our galaxy was created at the same time God created ...The Heavens AND the Earth'. pay no attention to those fools behind the curtain... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 19:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t3sag2$1vo0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #583627 |
Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote: >> On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote: >> >>>> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists? >>> >>> Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems >>> (and when) was created. >> That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to >> sci.astro or something. >>> HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius >>> of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)? >> Again, cosmology or astrophysics. >>> >>> Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic >>> distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion? >>> >>> And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium? >> Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics. >>> >>> Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of >>> 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else. >> It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But >> better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics >> questions. >>> >>> Of course, GR has no answers about this process. >> Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR. >>> >>> BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at >>> you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started >>> to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave >>> some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN >>> PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works. >>> >>> Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are >>> A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is. >>> >>> Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for >>> free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand. >>> >> Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder >> meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical >> professional can tell for certain. > > I simplified the terms I've used on the previous post: Astrophysics, > nuclear physics, cosmology, general relativity, etc. > > All of these fields currently spin around GR derivations, along the > years. If GR is used to give an "explanation" of the BB outcome, > supporting the narrative of a 14 billion years old universe, or how to be > patched with dark matter&energy, to explain the constitution > of the universe, OR how black energy is being used as ANTIGRAVITY FORCE > to explain ALLEGED universe acceleration of its expansion, > ALL THESE SHITTY theories are centered on HOW TO USE GR main equation > (with its cosmological constant correction) and how > to use the 200+ non-linear equations by LINEARIZING them in some way: All > of this is centered on the same single shit, and is that > Einstein's GR provided a framework under which the birth, existence and > fate of the universe is EXPLAINED (fucking imbeciles!). > > Moroney and Bodkin: you can try to divert the attention about my main > objective here, but you both fail, proving once again that you > both are a fucking pair of ignorant, indoctrinated trolls/shills. > > None of you can provide a SIMPLE explanation about HOW the Solar System > was created. Even less about WHEN it happened. 1. Off topic here. 2. It’s not a simple explanation. Asking for one is stupid. 3. Plenty of books on the subject. Need a recommendation? > Not to mention about the alleged creation of our galaxy 5 billion years ago. > > You know nothing. Space sciences know nothing. The only thing that have > in common is TO HYPE einstenians theory, one way or another. > > Not now, nor in 1,000 years, the mechanisms of GOD will be revealed to > the arrogant humans, which are less than microbes in > the general scenario of the God's created universe. > > And, finally, your pathetic support to measurements of AGE by half-time > life of heavy radioactive isotopes, that went from C-14 (20,000 years) > to uranium (2,000 million years) makes God smile. > > Imbecile cretins, with the same lineage of those that support light-based > atomic clocks with femtosecond resolution. > > As if would be possible to measure time in both extremes with the > slightest physical sense. > > LEARN how age of samples is CALCULATED, just calculated. > LEARN how TIME LAPSES of femtoseconds are CALCULATED by using heterodyne > methods to lower light frequencies about > 1,000,000 times to the microwave region, so regular digital counters can be used. > > LEARN about those methods, think about them, and then come here and > discuss about accuracy and precision. > > You are being played by a bunch of cretin useless eaters, located in 12 > places around the world (G-7 countries + Western China), > which are less than 150 cretins being used by MSM hosts to perpetuate myths. > > For instance, Tom Roberts is convinced that a gravitational clock shift > is measured, by using light clocks, down to the height of 1 cm. > > Roberts probably doesn't know the impossibility of such alleged > measurement. Should start with the weight of the equipment, and > follow with the tries to measure 1 femtosecond. > > But what he could know. He's not an EE, neither Bodkin or Moroney. > > > > -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-04-21 12:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b868968f-32c4-4f90-93fa-09f2067c2a02n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #583639 |
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> 1. Off topic here.
>
> 2. It’s not a simple explanation. Asking for one is stupid.
>
> 3. Plenty of books on the subject. Need a recommendation?
1. BBT is in no way off-topic here, imbecile. Should I seek and repost your earlier posts (2013) about which were the
topics allowed here and the rules for posting that you did, when you were defending yourself from attacks about
what you posted in your junior years here?
2. Of course, there is a simple explanation. Only that it will evade your reach, even if you live 1 million years, asshole.
3. I've read about 50 books on these topics, and ALL OF THEM are centered in applications of General Relativity, and how to SAVE IT!
These are some modern books on these topic, ALL CENTERED IN THE FUCKING GR EXTENDED TO INCLUDE BIG BANG AND E=MC2
The Expanding Universe : A Primer on Relativistic Cosmology (William D. Heacox)
Basic Calculus of Planetary Orbits and Interplanetary Flights (Alexander J. Hahn)
Introduction to the Interstellar Medium (Jonathan P. Williams)
Space Physics : An Introduction (C. T. Russell, J. G. Luhmann, R. J. Strangeway)
An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics (Richard Fitzpatrick)
Modern General Relativity : Black Holes, Gravitational Waves, and Cosmology (Mike Guidry)
Stars and Stellar Processes (Mike Guidry)
Astrophysics Processes : The Physics of Astronomical Phenomena (Hale Bradt)
Astronomy Methods : A Physical Approach to Astronomical Observations (Hale Bradt)
Understanding the Universe : An Inquiry Approach to Astronomy and the Nature of Scientific Research (George Greenstein)
The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (4th Ed., Jay M. Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
Test bank The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (5th Ed., Jay M. Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
Advanced Mechanics and General Relativity (Joel Franklin)
Solar System Dynamics (Carl D. Murray, Stanley F. Dermott)
Gauge/Gravity Duality : Foundations and Applications (Martin Ammon, Johanna Erdmenger)
Foundations of Nuclear and Particle Physics (T. William Donnelly, Joseph A. Formaggio, Barry R. Holstein, Richard G. Milner, Bernd Surrow)
Nuclear and Particle Physics : An Introduction (3rd Ed., Brian R. Martin & Graham Shaw)
Particle Physics at the New Millennium (Byron P. Roe)
Entropy in Dynamical Systems (Tomasz Downarowicz)
Nuclear Engineering : A Conceptual Introduction to Nuclear Power (Malcolm Joyce)
The Dynamics of Heat (Hans U. Fuchs)
Introduction to Statistical Physics (Silvio R. A. Salinas)
Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies : A Systematic Approach (Anil Rao)
To Measure the Sky : An Introduction to Observational Astronomy (Frederick R. Chromey)
Measuring the Universe : A Multiwavelength Perspective (George H. Rieke)
The Mechanical Universe : Mechanics and Heat, Advanced Edition (Steven C. Frautschi, Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
Beyond the Mechanical Universe : From Electricity to Modern Physics (Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
Fundamental Planetary Science : Physics, Chemistry and Habitability (Jack J. Lissauer, Imke de Pater)
An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd Ed., Bradley W. Carroll & Dale A. Ostlie)
Foundations of Astrophysics (Barbara Ryden & Bradley Peterson)
Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems (Johannes Falnes)
Astronomy : A Physical Perspective (2nd Ed., Marc L. Kutner)
Gravity : An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity (James Hartle)
Astronomy : A Beginner's Guide to the Universe (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
The Cosmic Perspective Media Update (4th Ed., Jeffrey O. Bennett, Megan Donahue, Nicholas Schneider & Mark Voit)
Astronomy Today (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
An Introduction to Astrobiology (Iain Gilmour & Mark Sephton)
Observational Cosmology (Stephen Serjeant)
Introduction to Cosmology (2nd Ed., Barbara Ryden)
An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology (Mark HJones & Robert Lambourne)
An Introduction to the Solar System (Neil McBride & Iain Gilmour)
Explorations : Stars Galaxies and Planets (1st Ed. Updated, Thomas Arny)
Explorations : An Introduction to Astronomy (2nd Ed., Thomas Arny)
Test bank Astronomy : Journey to the Cosmic Frontier (6th Ed., John D. Fix)
You have to access to books written BEFORE 1950, to find something LESS CORRUPTED by relativity.
The big move in books started in the '70s, among with black holes and dark energy/matter narrative.
Now, probably, 2020+ books include gender choice for celestial bodies, just to join the hype.
All fit into the narrative of CORRUPTING real science, fucking satanist relativists.
A fucking, satanic CULT. More and more, as day passes.
And you are an accomplish for this planned destruction of PUBLIC science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web