Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #827984 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-17 23:08 -0700 |
| Last post | 2021-08-12 03:00 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 157 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-17 23:08 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-18 17:14 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-18 00:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 17:55 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 01:10 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:15 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 15:23 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:38 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 15:43 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 08:58 -0400
America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2021-07-19 11:38 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-19 23:50 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Snit <brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 07:08 +0000
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-20 08:52 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:27 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-20 11:30 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 11:35 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 10:10 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-20 12:35 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 10:43 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:05 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:50 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 20:25 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 19:31 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 14:21 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:13 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-24 18:39 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-03 12:08 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 12:44 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-03 12:53 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-03 15:00 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 08:03 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:30 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 10:06 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 12:13 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 13:33 -0700
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 12:08 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2021-07-20 14:01 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 21:26 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2021-07-20 14:01 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 21:30 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Mainspring <MSpr@zeex.net> - 2021-07-21 00:05 -0400
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:09 -0500
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-21 19:45 -0600
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. Unruh <unruh@sjrb.ca> - 2021-07-22 02:02 +0000
Re: America's life expectancy is dropping like never before. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2021-07-20 21:22 -0600
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-18 00:35 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 15:44 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 16:22 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 10:19 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Kurt Nicklas <kurtnicklas@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 20:41 +0300
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-21 14:05 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 14:04 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-21 18:39 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 17:22 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 17:31 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-07-21 20:52 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 12:04 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 14:12 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 14:35 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 22:58 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 23:07 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 23:19 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-21 23:36 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 10:39 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-22 13:39 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-22 23:15 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 23:49 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 00:06 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 08:43 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 12:20 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 13:20 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:18 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 15:58 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-23 20:50 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 21:24 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-24 19:11 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-24 22:30 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:37 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 15:17 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 17:03 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-26 20:55 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 18:50 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-27 19:08 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 18:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 18:54 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-26 21:38 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 15:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 17:09 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 19:03 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-28 22:12 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 23:14 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-29 09:39 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 09:51 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-29 15:08 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 12:28 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Sergio <invaled@invalid.com> - 2021-07-29 17:46 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 16:05 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-29 18:13 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Sergio <invaled@invalid.com> - 2021-07-29 19:18 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-29 23:09 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2021-07-29 17:36 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-30 01:11 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-29 10:23 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-29 15:27 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-31 13:05 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-31 16:03 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-31 20:18 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 20:34 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-01 00:02 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-02 13:34 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-08-02 13:40 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 15:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-31 23:38 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2021-07-23 09:07 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 12:59 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-23 17:22 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? Jackson Sprat <jacksprat@kewlmail.com> - 2021-07-23 11:13 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? Clutterfreak <clutterfreakincarnate@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 11:18 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 22:27 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-22 23:17 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-22 23:46 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jackson Sprat <jacksprat@kewlmail.com> - 2021-07-23 11:13 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-23 10:47 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 03:22 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2021-07-26 01:10 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-26 09:49 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? "Byker" <byker@do~rag.net> - 2021-07-26 21:31 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 13:08 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-27 16:18 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 22:05 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-28 10:36 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-28 10:19 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-28 14:47 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 14:28 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-27 14:30 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 23:51 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 03:59 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 17:56 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Vance <vancen@gmail.com> - 2021-11-16 22:39 +0000
Re: How many planets are there? Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> - 2021-07-21 10:49 +1000
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-18 10:21 -0500
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 17:58 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:34 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> - 2021-07-20 12:02 -0500
Re: How stupid is starfucktard? Orni Thopter <flapping@wi.ngs> - 2021-07-18 13:48 -0700
What is the name of the 9th protester in Seattle ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2021-07-18 14:24 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-18 17:56 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2021-07-20 09:48 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Jonathan <writeInstead@Gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 18:50 -0400
Re: How many planets are there? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 11:14 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Mi Na <ya12983@mail.com> - 2021-07-22 02:28 -0700
Re: How many planets are there? Andy Everett <andyeverett57@gmail.com> - 2021-07-29 10:58 -0700
many He Llo <rob999999999@yahoo.com> - 2021-08-12 03:00 -0700
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 14:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60F88DD6.76F9@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828419 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > Word salad... > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. I bet Paul Alsing is wearing tissues in his bra...panties on too tight. I mean, really...they haven't even built a telescope to see that far. Lock up Dr. Fauci Lock him up Lock him up Lock him up Lock him up Lock up Dr. Lie. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 14:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60c0fc09-42b0-497e-a122-890b2cc2c763n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828431 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > Word salad... > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope ... is this enough for you? I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 22:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60F9091F.5A8A@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828432 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > > > Word salad... > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope > > ... is this enough for you? > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. It's Fake Science! Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg and then you multiply it by a million???? This is 'fauci science'... Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 23:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ba3ddeb-1f57-44fb-bea3-2e1c7f43b5f2n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828482 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:58:14 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. Tell me, in your own words, what is fraudulent about the Drake Equation... I'm pretty sure that you are clueless about it...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 23:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60F90DF8.3AA6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828482 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > > > > > Word salad... > > > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope > > > > ... is this enough for you? > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. > > It's Fake Science! > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > and then you multiply it by a million???? > > This is 'fauci science'... > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. Here is a quote about ...so-called planets: “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable. Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.” https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/ The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ... Data???? wat those dat mean? "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean? "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean? That means, some fauci guy got a calculator took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets! I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS! -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 23:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60F911EF.1FB6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828484 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > > > > > > > Word salad... > > > > > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > > > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > > > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. > > > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope > > > > > > ... is this enough for you? > > > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... > > > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ > > > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." > > > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. > > > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. > > > > It's Fake Science! > > > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. > > > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > and then you multiply it by a million???? > > > > This is 'fauci science'... > > > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... > > > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. > > > > -- > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > > the unchallengeable. > > Here is a quote about ...so-called planets: > > “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable. > Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s > extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.” > > https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/ > > The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ... > > Data???? wat those dat mean? > > "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean? > > "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean? > > That means, some fauci guy got a calculator > took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets! > > I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS! > about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations: "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-22 10:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba3f7a74-ad8e-4213-baf0-d8de64e0338fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828485 |
On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > > > > > > > > > Word salad... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > > > > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > > > > > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > > > > > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. > > > > > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope > > > > > > > > ... is this enough for you? > > > > > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... > > > > > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ > > > > > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy — and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." > > > > > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. > > > > > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. > > > > > > It's Fake Science! > > > > > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. > > > > > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > > > and then you multiply it by a million???? > > > > > > This is 'fauci science'... > > > > > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... > > > > > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. > > > > > > -- > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > Here is a quote about ...so-called planets: > > > > “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable. > > Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s > > extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.” > > > > https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/ > > > > The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ... > > > > Data???? wat those dat mean? > > > > "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean? > > > > "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean? > > > > That means, some fauci guy got a calculator > > took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets! > > > > I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS! > > > about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations: > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. > Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice. > As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. > Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. > I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. > The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." > -- The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be zero, at least not yet, so the answer cannot be zero! The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true. Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise. Kepler has found thousands of verified planets in a very small area of the sky and used that data to interpolate over the entire celestial sphere and that is where they got their estimate. It is almost certainly true that there are more planets in the galaxy than there are stars!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-22 13:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60F9D764.2929@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828563 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Word salad... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > > > > > > > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > > > > > > > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope > > > > > > > > > > ... is this enough for you? > > > > > > > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... > > > > > > > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ > > > > > > > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy  and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... > > > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > > > > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. > > > > > > > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. > > > > > > > > It's Fake Science! > > > > > > > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. > > > > > > > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? > > > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > > > > > and then you multiply it by a million???? > > > > > > > > This is 'fauci science'... > > > > > > > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... > > > > > > > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > > > Here is a quote about ...so-called planets: > > > > > > “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable. > > > Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s > > > extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.†> > > > > > https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/ > > > > > > The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ... > > > > > > Data???? wat those dat mean? > > > > > > "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean? > > > > > > "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean? > > > > > > That means, some fauci guy got a calculator > > > took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets! > > > > > > I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS! > > > > > about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations: > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. > > Nor can there be “informed guesses.†If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice. > > As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions†to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. > > Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. > > I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. > > The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." > > -- > The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be z > > The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true. > > Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise. I understand yous people...if the information is not in your head then it doesn't exist anywhere else..limited intelligence they call it. Know your limits. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifq6nLv_fxAhWBAp0JHTrCALQQxfQBMAJ6BAgJEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fscience%2Fastronomy-exoplanets-kepler.html&usg=AOvVaw1HR650WjY-flEnpnUWn8Wp ""Dr. Batalha said that young scientists in the future might yet find a way to improve the value of eta-Earth: “Until then, this will be the de facto standard.” The value of eta-Earth is an important and hitherto unknown factor in a mathematical expression known as the Drake Equation. It is used by astronomers to estimate how many technological civilizations might exist in the galaxy, and that we might be able to contact by radio or other means some cosmic day."" https://www.google.com/search?q=kepler-186f+planet+drake&sxsrf=ALeKk016_iSLqLuI10PrW1-ItBmGu63UWw:1626985228884&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7PykwPfxAhXBZc0KHRJVCQYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=1067 -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-22 23:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FA5E71.1EAD@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828589 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 11:36:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 2:12:24 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wednesday, July 21, 2021 at 10:02:33 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 20, 2021 at 3:43:39 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...there is only one sun in the whole entire universe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is only one Sun, but there are uncountable other suns in the universe. Just ask a dictionary... which, of course, tells us all just what a sun is... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "a star, especially one that has planets and other celestial bodies revolving around it: > > > > > > > > > > Many other solar systems have multiple suns, while ours has just one." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Strange how Paul Alsing uses 'fauci science' to get around words... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Word salad... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Any intellectual honest person knows The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is what I said. You don't understand the written word? I said "There is only one Sun..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wiki (the facuci science website) reads: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Sun is the star at the center of the Solar System. > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I doubt that anyone would argue about this... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But yous only counted 8 planets...and it's only in your own solar system. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never mentioned anything about planets... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning...all those others stars don't have a solar system, so they are not suns, they are stars. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets... and even a star without any planets can still be referenced as a sun, as per dictionary definition. The word 'sun' is embedded ion the language and is used all the time. Get over >it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There goes another fauci science guy who sez "Thousands and thousands of other stars, others suns, have been found to have planets..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but yet cannot show any proof of other stars with a planet/planets (or even name one) that truly exist. > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, I can ame a lot more than just one...here is a list of planets external to our solar system that have names... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exoplanets_discovered_using_the_Kepler_space_telescope > > > > > > > > > > > > ... is this enough for you? > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm gonna guess that you have never heard of the Kepler Mission... > > > > > > > > > > > > https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/keplerscience/ > > > > > > > > > > > > " Kepler has proven there are more planets than stars in our galaxy  and knowing that revolutionizes our scientific understanding of our place in the cosmos." > > > > > > > > > > Oh yeah, i seen those pretty pictures of... > > > > > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > > > > > > > and they are still using fraudlant Drake Equations to try and get past ...8 planets. > > > > > > > > > > An artistconcept illustration is not a photograph of a planet...it's 'fauci science'. > > > > > > > > > > It's Fake Science! > > > > > > > > > > Look, build a telescope, point it to one other star and see if you 'see' a planet...not a dot. > > > > > > > > > > Yous guys take a dot and the result is this? > > > > > > > > > > https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/kepler186f_artistconcept.jpg > > > > > > > > > > and then you multiply it by a million???? > > > > > > > > > > This is 'fauci science'... > > > > > > > > > > Stop taking pictures of the end of the universe and take one past the eighth planet... > > > > > > > > > > If Albert Einstein was alive today he would be in jail for lying to congress. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > > > > > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > > > > > the unchallengeable. > > > > > > > > Here is a quote about ...so-called planets: > > > > > > > > “Kepler already told us there were billions of planets, but now we know a good chunk of those planets might be rocky and habitable. > > > > Though this result is far from a final value, and water on a planet’s surface is only one of many factors to support life, it’s > > > > extremely exciting that we calculated these worlds are this common with such high confidence and precision.†> > > > > > > > https://www.universetoday.com/148667/based-on-kepler-data-theres-a-95-chance-of-an-earth-like-planet-within-20-light-years/ > > > > > > > > The Headlind begins: Based on Kepler Data, ... > > > > > > > > Data???? wat those dat mean? > > > > > > > > "Though this result is far from a final value..." wat does that mean? > > > > > > > > "we calculated these worlds are this common..." 'we calculated'???? wat does that mean? > > > > > > > > That means, some fauci guy got a calculator > > > > took the number one and mutiply it by a billion. Vola, a billion planets! > > > > > > > > I'll make it simple for yous fauci science guys...FUCK YOUR CALCULATIONS! > > > > > > > about calculations Kepler uses, Drake's Equations: > > > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. > > > Nor can there be “informed guesses.†If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice. > > > As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions†to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. > > > Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. > > > I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. > > > The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion." > > > -- > > The Drake equation was never intended to be hard science and everything you have written about it is correct. Drake came up with it essentially over lunch as an example of a way to potentially estimate the number of planets with intelligent life using best guesstimate forceach element. It is just a fun exercise that anyone can do, and come up with his own number. When it comes to being testable, it certainly is not, but the fact of the matter is that no term in the equation can be proven to be > > > > The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true. > > > > Also, it is not true that the Kepler mission used the Drake equation to make its calculations and I don't think you can prove otherwise. > > I understand yous people...if the information is not in your head then it doesn't exist anywhere else..limited intelligence they call it. Know your limits. > > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=newssearch&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwifq6nLv_fxAhWBAp0JHTrCALQQxfQBMAJ6BAgJEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2020%2F11%2F05%2Fscience%2Fastronomy-exoplanets-kepler.html&usg=AOvVaw1HR650WjY-flEnpnUWn8Wp > > ""Dr. Batalha said that young scientists in the future might yet find a way to improve the value of eta-Earth: “Until then, this will be the de facto standard.” > > The value of eta-Earth is an important and hitherto unknown factor in a mathematical expression known as the Drake Equation. > It is used by astronomers to estimate how many technological civilizations might exist in the galaxy, and that we might be able to contact by radio or other means some cosmic day."" > > https://www.google.com/search?q=kepler-186f+planet+drake&sxsrf=ALeKk016_iSLqLuI10PrW1-ItBmGu63UWw:1626985228884&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE7PykwPfxAhXBZc0KHRJVCQYQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1920&bih=1067 Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. n = Drake put in a value for n = and that value he used is fraud. Look up what number he put for n = and you will see the fraud. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-22 23:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44f60f6b-27d7-4940-908e-62abbda8d747n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828616 |
On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > n = > > Drake put in a value for n = > > and that value he used is fraud. > > Look up what number he put for n = > > and you will see the fraud.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 00:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aed33580-b915-47f2-ac2b-3cb3bc77faf1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828619 |
> On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > n = > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > and you will see the fraud. Now you are moving the goalposts. In an earlier post, you quoted... "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! Sure, there is nothing scientific about this, but it was never intended to be anything but a wild-ass guess as to how many planets in our galaxy might have intelligent life on them. No answer is wrong and no answer is likely to be correct. As we learn more and more about the universe we can narrow down the answers to many of the elements in the equation and our estimation will be better, but we will never, in all likelihood, be anywhere close to the actual number. Over the decades I've run the Drake Equations by lots of folks who know that I'm an advanced amateur astronomer, wanting to know what I think about life in our galaxy, and this shows them how likely it is that We Are Not Alone here in the Milky Way... and I always ask THEM to give me a guess for each term, even if they don't have a clue, and of course the answer is just a wild-ass guesstimate, and we all have fun... and where's the harm in that? The answer is always surprisingly large because several of the terms are really BIG, even if some of the terms are really small. Try it yourself, keeping in mind that no term can be zero... but they can be quite small, which is expected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 08:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FAE39A.1FA3@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828620 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > Now you are moving the goalposts. I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." n = Drake put in a value for n = and that value he used is fraud. Look up what number he put for n = and you will see the fraud. The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. It's obvious to everyone here... What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <31dc725e-9897-4d1e-8694-fe6c53b8736an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828637 |
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts. > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > > > > > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." > n = > > Drake put in a value for n = > > and that value he used is fraud. > > Look up what number he put for n = > > and you will see the fraud. > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. > > > It's obvious to everyone here... > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math. The Drake equation is: N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L) where: N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone); and R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FB2474.6338@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828661 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts. > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: > > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. > > > > > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." > > n = > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. > > > > > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. > > > > > > It's obvious to everyone here... > > > > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math. > > The Drake equation is: > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L) > > where: > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone); > and > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N! The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5 (you're not suppose to know that i guess) What number did Drake give for n = ? (you're not suppose to know that i guess) (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.) ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud) and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version. (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.) (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet) cancel culture been around a long time... Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ? multible choice a) 0 b) 1 c) 2 d) 3 Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations... n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life. So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 15:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <621ca8c4-74f6-4d0a-8f11-0617903ac2a3n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828667 |
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts. > > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: > > > > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > > > > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! > > > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." > > > n = > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. > > > > > > > > > It's obvious to everyone here... > > > > > > > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? > > > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math. > > > > The Drake equation is: > > > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L) > > > > where: > > > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone); > > and > > > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy > > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets > > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets > > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point > > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) > > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space > > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space > > > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N! > The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5 > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) It does not matter what number you pick for fp or for any term, that is the whole point! > > > What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.) Here is the original Drake Equation, from 1960... https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture20.pdf ... and it is exactly what I referenced aboce. > > > ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud) > > > and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version. > > > (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.) > > > (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet) > > cancel culture been around a long time... I say you are making this all up. Post a link to the equation you are referencing if you can. > > > > Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > multible choice > > > a) 0 > > b) 1 > > c) 2 > > d) 3 > > Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand > what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations... > > > n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life. Well, that is just ne in the original equation. you are very confused. Been drinking today? > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 15:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FB4989.14C8@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828681 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts. > > > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: > > > > > > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > > > > > > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! > > > > > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." > > > > n = > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. > > > > > > > > > > > > It's obvious to everyone here... > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? > > > > > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math. > > > > > > The Drake equation is: > > > > > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L) > > > > > > where: > > > > > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone); > > > and > > > > > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy > > > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets > > > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets > > > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point > > > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) > > > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space > > > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space > > > > > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N! > > > The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5 > > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > It does not matter what number you pick for fp or for any term, that is the whole point! > > > > > > What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > > > (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.) > > Here is the original Drake Equation, from 1960... > > https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture20.pdf > > ... and it is exactly what I referenced aboce. I was was specifically requesting Drake's original inputs..the value he gave n. > > > > > > ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud) > > > > > > and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version. > > > > > > (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.) > > > > > > (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet) > > > > cancel culture been around a long time... > > I say you are making this all up. Post a link to the equation you are referencing if you can. > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > > > > multible choice > > > > > > a) 0 > > > > b) 1 > > > > c) 2 > > > > d) 3 > > > > Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand > > what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations... > > > > > > n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life. > > Well, that is just ne in the original equation. you are very confused. Been drinking today? the e next to the n stands for earth. > > > > > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? What number did Drake give for n = ? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 20:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FB8DFD.79EE@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828684 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 1:19:46 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:43:15 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > Paul Alsing wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 11:15:05 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now I'm going to point out exactly where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > Now you are moving the goalposts. > > > > > I did not move the goalpost. I simply responded to what you wrote: > > > > > > > > > > "The only reason I responded to this post was that you called the Drake equation fraudulent, and that is just not true." --Paul Alsing > > > > > > > > > > > > "The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. > > > > > > The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And this is true. To work the Drake Equation you need to make a guess for each term in the equation, and a guess is not a fraud. A guess is what is *required* in order to generate an answer! > > > > > > > > > You simply don't understand Drake and his Equation. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I wrote: "Now I'm going to point out *exactly* where the fraud exist in Drake's Equation." > > > > > n = > > > > > > > > > > Drake put in a value for n = > > > > > > > > > > and that value he used is fraud. > > > > > > > > > > Look up what number he put for n = > > > > > > > > > > and you will see the fraud. > > > > > The value Drake put in was not a "guess" , it was intentional fraudulent. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But you don't know what that value is because you didn't bother to 'look it up'. You're just making uninformed, off-the-cuff statements. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's obvious to everyone here... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is the value that Drake used in n = ???? > > > > > > > > All you are doing here is confirming that you don't know much about math. > > > > > > > > The Drake equation is: > > > > > > > > N = (R*)(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)(L) > > > > > > > > where: > > > > > > > > N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone); > > > > and > > > > > > > > R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy > > > > fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets > > > > ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets > > > > fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point > > > > fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations) > > > > fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space > > > > L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space > > > > > > > > N is not a guessed number, N is the answer! DRake did not use any number for N! > > > > > The number Drake gave for fp = was 0.5 > > > > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > > > It does not matter what number you pick for fp or for any term, that is the whole point! > > > > > > > > > What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > > > > > > > (you're not suppose to know that i guess) > > > > > > (everyone is trying to hide Drake's original inputs cause they know it is a fraud.) > > > > Here is the original Drake Equation, from 1960... > > > > https://www.astro.umd.edu/~miller/teaching/astr380f09/lecture20.pdf > > > > ... and it is exactly what I referenced aboce. > > I was was specifically requesting Drake's original inputs..the value he gave n. > > > > > > > > > > ( I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find it, you have to get pass the coverups of Drake's fraud) > > > > > > > > > and you posted the new user edited versions of Drake's original version. > > > > > > > > > (you're not suppose to see his original version because...it is a fraud.) > > > > > > > > > (I forgot to warn you it might be very difficult for you to find Drake's original equation and his inputs because others are trying to erase it from the internet) > > > > > > cancel culture been around a long time... > > > > I say you are making this all up. Post a link to the equation you are referencing if you can. > > > > > > > > > > > > Okay, I'll give you a hint of What number did Drake give for n = ? > > > > > > > > > multible choice > > > > > > > > > a) 0 > > > > > > b) 1 > > > > > > c) 2 > > > > > > d) 3 > > > > > > Now, in order for you to understand the number Drake gave, you need to understand > > > what n = means originally in Drake's real Equations... > > > > > > > > > n = in Drake's original equation, it stands for the number of planets in a star system able to support Life. > > > > Well, that is just ne in the original equation. you are very confused. Been drinking today? I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. > > the e next to the n stands for earth. > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? > > What number did Drake give for n = ? > > -- > The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, > to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge > the unchallengeable. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 21:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <48d00a55-2d97-47e2-994b-c641025dc959n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #828699 |
On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking? > The Drake equation defines a “civilization” as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"... "The communicative lifetime L Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the while. With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?" So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a fraudulent answer. There are no wrong answers. > > the e next to the n stands for earth. No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier. > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 19:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60FCC84A.4FC4@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #828700 |
Paul Alsing wrote: > > On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: > > > I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . > > That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking? > > > The Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. > > Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"... > > "The communicative lifetime L > Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable > trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the > time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable > advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not > broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most > advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the > while. > With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I > could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?" > > So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you believe people are making it up. > > > > the e next to the n stands for earth. > > No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier. e is a postcript. > > > > > > So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? > > You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference. I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again! There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left back in the second grade??? -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | whodat <whodaat@void.nowgre.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 22:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <im447cFjc13U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #828765 |
On 7/24/2021 9:11 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > Paul Alsing wrote: >> >> On Friday, July 23, 2021 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> I've been using the lowercase n, and you were using the uppercase N . >> >> That's absurd. There is only 1 "N" or "n" in the equation, take your choice, and it represents the answer. Are you sure you haven't been drinking? >> >>> The Drake equation defines a “civilization†as a species possessing radiotelescopes. By this definition, civilization did not appear on Earth until the 1930s. >> >> Here is what the original paper s ays about "L"... >> >> "The communicative lifetime L >> Our last factor is the duration during which a communicative civilization would communicate. This is affected by a number of things. It could be that aggression is an inevitable >> trait and that it just as inevitably leads to destruction that, if not total, severely limits the >> time that civilizations can let their existence be known. It could be that even for stable >> advanced civilizations they don’t talk much; for example, note that cable television does not >> broadcast signals into space, whereas ordinary TV does. On the other hand, perhaps most >> advanced species have very extended lifetimes, and that they communicate actively all the >> while. >> With all this in mind, and given that we have had this capability for around 50 years, I >> could imagine L being anywhere from decades to billions of years. What is your best guess?" >> >> So, it does not mention "radio telescopes" at all, you just made that up. You are guilty of splitting hairs. It does not really matter how you want to define "civilization", use whatever definition you like. It makes no difference whatsoever. It is just a guess or > estimate in any case. The Drake Equation is just a fun exercise, not a life-or-death combat, and all the 'rules' are loosey-goosey and your guess is not particularly important at all, you will still get an answer, and it will not be a > > > You have a pattern, Everytime you show you don't know somehing you > believe people are making it up. > >> >>>> the e next to the n stands for earth. >> >> No, the ne term means "habitable planets that are Earth-like". Again, you should read the original Drake Equation paper which I referenced earlier. > > > e is a postcript. > > > > > >> >>>>>> So, which number did Drake picked? 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? >> >> You sure are dense. N or n (take your pick) stands for the answer... and zero is not a valid guess in any case. If you think differently, please provide a reference. > > > I gave you a multible choice of four, 0, 1, 2, or 3 ? and you're working > your way up from....zero???? You're getting warm...try again! > > > There are children that know the answer to this question...did you left > back in the second grade??? How come you're still in the same seat after 53 attempts to achieve 3rd grade?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web