Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365948 > unrolled thread

green stars

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
    green stars Francis Oldogf <francisoldogf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 03:30 -0700
    Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:19 -0500
    Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 09:25 -0700
    Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 09:26 -0700
    Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-02 14:40 -0400
      Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-02 22:18 +0000
        Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:45 -0500
          Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 16:55 -0700
        Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:02 -0700
        Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-02 22:38 -0400
        Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:37 -0400
          Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:52 -0700
          Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:36 -0500
            Re: green stars nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-10-04 01:59 -0700
            Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:39 -0700
              Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:55 -0700
          Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:17 -0700
            Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
              Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:07 -0500
              Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
                Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 23:52 -0700
                  Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 09:44 -0700
                    Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 10:24 -0700
                      Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 11:06 -0700
                        Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 12:35 -0700
                          Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:16 -0700
                          Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:15 -0700
                            Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:31 -0700
                              Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0700
                              Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:12 -0700
                  Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:34 -0700
                    Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-07 00:49 -0700
                      Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:24 -0700
    Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500
      Re: green stars nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-10-05 01:08 -0700

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#366249

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> On 05/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?
> 
> Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs
> around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around
> it, that are nearly as large as the peak.
> 
> The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.
> 
>         Yousuf Khan



My only explanation
for the existences
of stable green stars among
fast moving red
shifting stars
shooting in all
directions is
the big bang occurred
in a vicinity
of preexisting stars.

I'm going to have to re-write Science...
and science fiction...and astronomy..and
pyhsics!

Throw your science books away, I'm re-writing your textbooks.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366292

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
> >
> > On 05/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?
> >
> > Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs
> > around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around
> > it, that are nearly as large as the peak.
> >
> > The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.
> >
> >         Yousuf Khan
> 
> My only explanation
> for the existences
> of stable green stars among
> fast moving red
> shifting stars
> shooting in all
> directions is
> the big bang occurred
> in a vicinity
> of preexisting stars.
> 
> I'm going to have to re-write Science...
> and science fiction...and astronomy..and
> pyhsics!
> 
> Throw your science books away, I'm re-writing your textbooks.


That explains a lot if you look at it from a different point of view...

it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.

The Moon comes from an era 'before' the big bang, and got...banged up in the resulting explosion.

In otherwords...you got all kinds of stuff in the universe that existed before the big bang.

I wouldn't be surprised if Venus is older than our Sun!


If you step back...you can probably see our universe is just in itself...a galaxy. The Galaxy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366324

On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:52:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

> it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.

This can be completely explained with one word. Erosion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366325

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:52:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> 
> This can be completely explained with one word. Erosion.


That is not an explaination, that's 'just a theory'. 

I'm giving 'explainations', not theories, my work is ...beyond science.

People wants answers, not....guesses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366327

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 10:24:44 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:52:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> > 
> > This can be completely explained with one word. Erosion.
> 
> 
> That is not an explaination, that's 'just a theory'. 
> 
> I'm giving 'explainations', not theories, my work is ...beyond science.
> 
> People wants answers, not....guesses.

No, it is not a theory, it is not a guess, it is a fact.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/

"Three processes help Earth keep its surface crater free. The first is called erosion. Earth has weather, water, and plants. These act together to break apart and wear down the ground. Eventually erosion can break a crater down to virtually nothing."

http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm

"... On the Earth, however, which has been even more heavily impacted than the Moon, craters are continually erased by erosion and redeposition as well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity."

You 'explanations' are incomprehensible garbage...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366340

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 10:24:44 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:52:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> > >
> > > This can be completely explained with one word. Erosion.
> >
> >
> > That is not an explaination, that's 'just a theory'.
> >
> > I'm giving 'explainations', not theories, my work is ...beyond science.
> >
> > People wants answers, not....guesses.
> 
> No, it is not a theory, it is not a guess, it is a fact.
> 
> http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/
> 
> "Three processes help Earth keep its surface crater free. The first is called erosion. Earth has weather, water, and plants. These act together to break apart and wear down the ground. Eventually erosion can break a crater down to virtually nothing."
> 
> http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm
> 
> "... On the Earth, however, which has been even more heavily impacted than the Moon, craters are continually erased by erosion and redeposition as well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity."
> 
> You 'explanations' are incomprehensible garbage...



I like the cartoons:
http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/

Why is it these 'socalledfacts' never have an authors name????

For the same reason why doctors where masks....



No author names...
http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm


If you're going to post lies on a web page, you don't want your name associated with it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366345

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:35:15 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 10:24:44 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:52:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> > > >
> > > > This can be completely explained with one word. Erosion.
> > >
> > >
> > > That is not an explaination, that's 'just a theory'.
> > >
> > > I'm giving 'explainations', not theories, my work is ...beyond science.
> > >
> > > People wants answers, not....guesses.
> > 
> > No, it is not a theory, it is not a guess, it is a fact.
> > 
> > http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/
> > 
> > "Three processes help Earth keep its surface crater free. The first is called erosion. Earth has weather, water, and plants. These act together to break apart and wear down the ground. Eventually erosion can break a crater down to virtually nothing."
> > 
> > http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm
> > 
> > "... On the Earth, however, which has been even more heavily impacted than the Moon, craters are continually erased by erosion and redeposition as well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity."
> > 
> > You 'explanations' are incomprehensible garbage...
> 
> 
> 
> I like the cartoons:
> http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/
> 
> Why is it these 'socalledfacts' never have an authors name????
> 
> For the same reason why doctors where masks....
> 
> 
> 
> No author names...
> http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm

I see you powers of observation are as poor as your science chops. You clarly didn't look very hard for the authors name, which is Calvin J. Hamilton, and the references he used are also there...

"The information on this page was taken primarily from Koeberl and Sharpton.

Koeberl, Christian and Virgil L. Sharpton. Terrestrial Impact Craters Slide Set. Lunar and Planetary Institute.

Pilkington, M. and R. A. F. Grieve, "The Geophysical Signature of Terrestrial Impact Craters." Reviews of Geophysics, May 1992, vol. 30, pp. 161-181."

> If you're going to post lies on a web page, you don't want your name associated with it.

So, erosion is a lie?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366367

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 12:35:17 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 10:24:44 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Monday, October 5, 2015 at 11:52:02 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> > > > >
> > > > > This can be completely explained with one word. Erosion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is not an explaination, that's 'just a theory'.
> > > >
> > > > I'm giving 'explainations', not theories, my work is ...beyond science.
> > > >
> > > > People wants answers, not....guesses.
> > >
> > > No, it is not a theory, it is not a guess, it is a fact.
> > >
> > > http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/
> > >
> > > "Three processes help Earth keep its surface crater free. The first is called erosion. Earth has weather, water, and plants. These act together to break apart and wear down the ground. Eventually erosion can break a crater down to virtually nothing."
> > >
> > > http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm
> > >
> > > "... On the Earth, however, which has been even more heavily impacted than the Moon, craters are continually erased by erosion and redeposition as well as by volcanic resurfacing and tectonic activity."
> > >
> > > You 'explanations' are incomprehensible garbage...
> >
> >
> >
> > I like the cartoons:
> > http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/craters/en/
> >
> > Why is it these 'socalledfacts' never have an authors name????
> >
> > For the same reason why doctors where masks....
> >
> >
> >
> > No author names...
> > http://solarviews.com/eng/tercrate.htm
> 
> I see your powers of observation are as poor as your science chops. You clearly didn't look very hard for the authors name, which is Calvin J. Hamilton, and the references he used are also there...
> 
> "The information on this page was taken primarily from Koeberl and Sharpton.
> 
> Koeberl, Christian and Virgil L. Sharpton. Terrestrial Impact Craters Slide Set. Lunar and Planetary Institute.
> 
> Pilkington, M. and R. A. F. Grieve, "The Geophysical Signature of Terrestrial Impact Craters." Reviews of Geophysics, May 1992, vol. 30, pp. 161-181."
> 
> > If you're going to post lies on a web page, you don't want your name associated with it.
> 
> So, erosion is a lie?

I don't know of any 'erosion' that exist that works on craters only. 


"However, we would like to caution against just using images or remote sensing to identify impact craters on Earth without 
corroborating petrographic and geochemical studies on crater rocks. 
Only such studies can provide confirming evidence that a geological structure is of impact origin."


Translation: There is no confirming evidence a geological structure is of impact origin.


http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/slidesets/craters/




"Introduction
Impact cratering research has gained attention throughout the world following the suggestion..."

"suggestion"????


Sounds like 'just a theory'.




Now you guys are saying that it wasn't a asteroid that killed the dinosaurs but a vocano....and a asteroid (just to keep the asteroid boys happy).

http://www.futurity.org/asteroids-volcanoes-dinosaurs-1018262/


http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/10/volcanoes-and-asteroid-strike-may-have-done-dinosaurs



I told you guys what killed all the dinosaurs already...they simply ran out of girl dinosaurs.


There weren't that many chicks around...and they were ugly and smelly...stinky. Now today girls wear makeup and perfume.


but they are still ugly and stinky....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366371

i mean, come on already....
just because something
on the surface of the earth
'looks like a impact crater'
doesn't mean that is what
it is.

I got a 
potatoe chip
that looks like
it has impact craters
on it...
Did a asteroid impact
my potatoe chip?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366374

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:31:20 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:

> i mean, come on already....
> just because something
> on the surface of the earth
> 'looks like a impact crater'
> doesn't mean that is what
> it is.

True enough. However...

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366401

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 3:31:22 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > i mean, come on already....
> > just because something
> > on the surface of the earth
> > 'looks like a impact crater'
> > doesn't mean that is what
> > it is.
> >
> > I got a
> > potatoe chip
> > that looks like
> > it has impact craters
> > on it...
> > Did a asteroid impact
> > my potatoe chip?
> 
> True enough. However...
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impact_craters_on_Earth


Okay, lets start with North America...

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

Sure a lot of craters listed in Canada! I would think with all that terrible weather they have it would have...eroded all by now.

Why did they all go to Canada???? 

So, let's look at the first one listed:

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


it first reads:

The Bow City Impact Crater is a probable meteorite impact crater ...


"probable"???? watdoesdatmean??? soundslikesciencelingofor...idon'tknowidon'tknowidon'tknow.

I click on Reference:

http://www.wired.com/2012/12/buried-bow-city-impact-crater/

"An extraterrestrial impact crater is hiding near a Canadian ghost town....and is invisible unless you’ve got seismic superpowers."



Does *anyone* need to bother going further?



You would have to be a looney bird...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366408

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > >
> > > On 05/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?
> > >
> > > Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs
> > > around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around
> > > it, that are nearly as large as the peak.
> > >
> > > The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.
> > >
> > >         Yousuf Khan
> >
> > My only explanation
> > for the existences
> > of stable green stars among
> > fast moving red
> > shifting stars
> > shooting in all
> > directions is
> > the big bang occurred
> > in a vicinity
> > of preexisting stars.
> >
> > I'm going to have to re-write Science...
> > and science fiction...and astronomy..and
> > pyhsics!
> >
> > Throw your science books away, I'm re-writing your textbooks.
> 
> That explains a lot if you look at it from a different point of view...
> 
> it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> 
> The Moon comes from an era 'before' the big bang, and got...banged up in the resulting explosion.
> 
> In otherwords...you got all kinds of stuff in the universe that existed before the big bang.
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if Venus is older than our Sun!
> 
> If you step back...you can probably see our universe is just in itself...a galaxy. The Galaxy.

did i spel astronomy wrong?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366412

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 05/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?
> > > >
> > > > Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs
> > > > around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around
> > > > it, that are nearly as large as the peak.
> > > >
> > > > The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.
> > > >
> > > >         Yousuf Khan
> > >
> > > My only explanation
> > > for the existences
> > > of stable green stars among
> > > fast moving red
> > > shifting stars
> > > shooting in all
> > > directions is
> > > the big bang occurred
> > > in a vicinity
> > > of preexisting stars.
> > >
> > > I'm going to have to re-write Science...
> > > and science fiction...and astronomy..and
> > > pyhsics!
> > >
> > > Throw your science books away, I'm re-writing your textbooks.
> >
> > That explains a lot if you look at it from a different point of view...
> >
> > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> >
> > The Moon comes from an era 'before' the big bang, and got...banged up in the resulting explosion.
> >
> > In otherwords...you got all kinds of stuff in the universe that existed before the big bang.
> >
> > I wouldn't be surprised if Venus is older than our Sun!
> >
> > If you step back...you can probably see our universe is just in itself...a galaxy. The Galaxy.
> 
> did i spel astronomy wrong?


maybe the green stars are at the antiuniverse...where all the
antineutrinos hang out.


I mean, you cannot have The Galaxy without an antiuniverse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366537

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 05/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?
> > > > >
> > > > > Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs
> > > > > around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around
> > > > > it, that are nearly as large as the peak.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.
> > > > >
> > > > >         Yousuf Khan
> > > >
> > > > My only explanation
> > > > for the existences
> > > > of stable green stars among
> > > > fast moving red
> > > > shifting stars
> > > > shooting in all
> > > > directions is
> > > > the big bang occurred
> > > > in a vicinity
> > > > of preexisting stars.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to have to re-write Science...
> > > > and science fiction...and astronomy..and
> > > > pyhsics!
> > > >
> > > > Throw your science books away, I'm re-writing your textbooks.
> > >
> > > That explains a lot if you look at it from a different point of view...
> > >
> > > it explains why the Moon has so many craters and the Earth which is next to it...doesn't.
> > >
> > > The Moon comes from an era 'before' the big bang, and got...banged up in the resulting explosion.
> > >
> > > In otherwords...you got all kinds of stuff in the universe that existed before the big bang.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't be surprised if Venus is older than our Sun!
> > >
> > > If you step back...you can probably see our universe is just in itself...a galaxy. The Galaxy.
> >
> > did i spel astronomy wrong?
> 
> maybe the green stars are at the antiuniverse...where all the
> antineutrinos hang out.
> 
> I mean, you cannot have The Galaxy without an antiuniverse.


I expect any day a phone call, and a man with a switish accent telling me "You won The Nobell Prize for Astro-Physics!!!"

I solved the origin of the universe problem!

wats next?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366146

Different temperature resutlst in different color for human eyes
> http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/07f06.jpg

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366201

Il giorno domenica 4 ottobre 2015 14:53:54 UTC+2, Sam Wormley ha scritto:
> Different temperature resutlst in different color for human eyes
> > http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/images/07f06.jpg
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.
..i don't understand much from that image..
 my 'sturmundtruppen' opinion of Ted Wright is :
  he spends much time for writing , few time for thinking about it and no time for answering about questions of Readers .. i rephrase my question :
 in a celestial body, at one milliard y.l. 'distance ,the Redshift 'component is big compared to the motus'proper component ...
 at one million y.l. distance , the Redshift 'component is almost 20 km.s. and the motus'proper part can be bigger or inferior to that 
 at 1000 y.l. , the part of Rad Vel can be important ..but somebody tried to reveil , if existing , a component of Redshift of 0.02 km.s.? (like i have done! but i cannot quote myself !)
 Ted Wright writes that the galaxies are not expanding ..so , how were its , in the bigbang'time ? ..like now ..or in a point .. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web