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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #423875 > unrolled thread

Jupiter's Great Red Spot

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

Contents

  Jupiter's Great Red Spot  The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-03 10:45 -0700
    Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> - 2017-07-04 21:22 +1000
      Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-04 15:03 +0200
      Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-07-04 14:25 +0000
        Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 09:03 -0700
          Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Upech Bezradne <adeeia@bbzzeop.ic> - 2017-07-07 10:45 +0000
            Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-07-07 09:20 -0500
              Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Ursler Zilberschlag <ursler@zilbersch.org> - 2017-07-09 09:39 +0000
        Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-04 18:08 +0200
          Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 11:05 -0700
            Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-05 01:24 +0200
              Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 18:46 -0700
                Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-05 04:48 +0200
                  Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 20:44 -0700
        Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-11 07:08 -0600
          Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-13 08:50 -0700
            Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 11:19 -0700
              Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Garfield Dieter <igdle@rdlge.rf> - 2017-07-15 18:23 +0000
                Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-07-17 22:53 +0200
              Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 12:35 -0700
                Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 12:49 -0700
                  Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 14:23 -0700
                  Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-15 14:35 -0700
                  Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-16 13:03 -0700
                    Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-16 17:11 -0700
                    Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-19 10:12 -0700
                      Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-19 10:18 -0700
          Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-18 03:40 -0500
            Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2017-07-18 14:07 +0000
              Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Robert Woodward <robertaw@drizzle.com> - 2017-07-18 09:02 -0700
              Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot David DeLaney <daviddelaney@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-18 14:13 -0500
      Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-04 12:13 -0700
        Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:29 +1000
          Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-05 11:39 -0700
            Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-08 12:22 -0700
    Re: Jupiter's Great Red Spot  Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-04 08:31 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#423875 — Jupiter's Great Red Spot

i'll explain to you what is

Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and why it's red.


All planets surface is the color red. Earth is the only planet with a blue surface color.


Jupiter is simply making another red planet. 


giving birth to a planet...


Where do you think Mars came from? 


this stuff is easy when you're a fucking genuies like me.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#423922

On 4/07/2017 3:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> i'll explain to you what is
> 
> Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and why it's red.
> 
> 
> All planets surface is the color red. Earth is the only planet with a blue surface color.
> 
> 
> Jupiter is simply making another red planet.
> 
> 
> giving birth to a planet...



Giving birth through the rectal passage?


> 
> 
> Where do you think Mars came from?
> 


Mars is brown.  Point proven.


---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

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

#423927

Whisper amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups, 1 outside the Big 8:

> Mars is brown.  […]

More like _red_, hence the name: Mars is the name of the Roman god of war, 
equivalent to the Greek god Ares, associated with human blood (cf. 
“bloodshed”), which appears red, thanks to the iron-containing haemoglobin.

F’up2 rec.arts.sf.written

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#423932

In article <xf6dnamuxfX658bEnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au>,
Whisper  <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
>On 4/07/2017 3:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> i'll explain to you what is
>> 
>> Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and why it's red.
>> 
>> 
>> All planets surface is the color red. Earth is the only planet with a
>blue surface color.
>> 
>> 
>> Jupiter is simply making another red planet.
>> 
>> 
>> giving birth to a planet...

OMG, I think I knew where he got this.  Remember the original
COSMOS, when Sagan was spending a few minutes eviscerating
Velikovsky?  Who envisioned Venus having been ejected from
Jupiter and somehow assuming a nearly circular orbit in its
current position?

Sagan walked up to a gigantic model of Jupiter, opened up the Red
Spot (it was on a hinge) and pulled out a model of Venus and
walked away with it.

Starmaker is just deranged enough to have mistaken this
demonstration of what never happened for a prophecy of what's
about to happen.

As for the colors of planets (as seen through atmosphrere from
Earth, mind you), there used to be a saying among classic (I mean
Greco-Roman times), that three astronomical objects shone red:
Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly
not red today, and current astrophysics has no explanation for a
star turning from bright red to bright blue-white.  If ever I
meet an astrophysicist, I'll ask him/her, "What's your
hypothesis," and if the answer is "I haven't got one," I'll take
that as an honest answer.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

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

#423937

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 8:45:14 AM UTC-6, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>
> In article <xf6dnamuxfX658bEnZ2dnUU7-LWdnZ2d@westnet.com.au>,
> Whisper  <beaver999@ozemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 4/07/2017 3:45 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > i'll explain to you what is
> > > 
> > > Jupiter's Great Red Spot, and why it's red.
> > > 
> > > All planets surface is the color red. Earth is the only planet with a
> > > blue surface color.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Jupiter is simply making another red planet.
> > > 
> > > giving birth to a planet...
> 
> OMG, I think I knew where he got this.  Remember the original
> COSMOS, when Sagan was spending a few minutes eviscerating
> Velikovsky?  Who envisioned Venus having been ejected from
> Jupiter and somehow assuming a nearly circular orbit in its
> current position?

I thought of Velikovsky, too, when I read his post.

> Sagan walked up to a gigantic model of Jupiter, opened up the Red
> Spot (it was on a hinge) and pulled out a model of Venus and
> walked away with it.

And Venus isn't red :-)

> ....
> As for the colors of planets (as seen through atmosphrere from
> Earth, mind you), there used to be a saying among classic (I mean
> Greco-Roman times), that three astronomical objects shone red:
> Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly
> not red today, and current astrophysics has no explanation for a
> star turning from bright red to bright blue-white.  If ever I
> meet an astrophysicist, I'll ask him/her, "What's your
> hypothesis," and if the answer is "I haven't got one," I'll take
> that as an honest answer.
> 
> -- 
> Dorothy J. Heydt
> Vallejo, California
> djheydt at gmail dot com

Robert Burnham had a speculation that people's eyes mutated since classic
times (e.g., Homer wrote "the wine-dark sea), but IMHO this is baloney.
Why would EVERYONE have mutated eyes now!

A more reasonable speculation is that we don't really understand the
evolution of stars going off the main sequence and how fast a red giant
can shrink to a white dwarf.

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

#424168

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> OMG, I think I knew where he got this.  Remember the original COSMOS,
>> when Sagan was spending a few minutes eviscerating Velikovsky?  Who
>> envisioned Venus having been ejected from Jupiter and somehow assuming
>> a nearly circular orbit in its current position?
> 
> I thought of Velikovsky, too, when I read his post.

A wonderful human being.

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

#424184

On 7/7/17 7/7/17   5:45 AM, Upech Bezradne wrote:
>> I thought of Velikovsky, too, when I read his post.
> 
> A wonderful human being.

Velikovsky was a charlatan and a FRAUD. Not "wonderful" at all.

	As a grad student I was stunned by _Worlds_In_Collision_. My advisor
	thought I was crazy. So I decided to devote a day to chasing down
	his references in the physics library. I quit before noon. Out of
	hundreds of references that should have been in the library, NOT A
	SINGLE ONE checked out. In numerous cases the journal issue was
	present, but the paper cited simply did not exist. In many cases
	his claims were almost the exact opposite of what the article
	actually said. Many years later I learned that Carl Sagan had done
	essentially the same thing in an astronomy library, with identical
	results.

Tom Roberts

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

#424347

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 7/7/17 7/7/17   5:45 AM, Upech Bezradne wrote:
>>> I thought of Velikovsky, too, when I read his post.
>> 
>> A wonderful human being.
> 
> Velikovsky was a charlatan and a FRAUD. Not "wonderful" at all. 
> As a grad student I was stunned by _Worlds_In_Collision_. My advisor
> thought I was crazy. So I decided to devote a day to chasing down his
> references in the physics library. I quit before noon. Out of hundreds
> of references that should have been in the library, NOT A SINGLE ONE
> checked out. In numerous cases the journal issue was present, but the
> paper cited simply did not exist. In many cases his claims were almost
> the exact opposite of what the article actually said. Many years later
> I learned that Carl Sagan had done essentially the same thing in an
> astronomy library, with identical results. Tom Roberts

Not at all. You discredit the power of Stimulation. In fact you just gave 
the proof, he Formed you. And I believe, he said openly he had no 
education in Physics, to his many followers. I love these kind of people.

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

#423938

Dorothy J Heydt amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups, 1 outside the Big 8:

> […] there used to be a saying among classic (I mean Greco-Roman times),
> that three astronomical objects shone red: Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but
> not as red)  Sirius is certainly not red today, and current astrophysics
> has no explanation for a star turning from bright red to bright blue-
> white.  […]

Yes, it has.  For example, there is the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) where 
a *red* giant becomes a *white* dwarf (a blue tinge can also be caused by 
Terra’s atmosphere).

In fact, this is a *very* common development [“undertaken by *all* low- to 
intermediate-mass stars (0.6–10 solar masses)”; emphasis mine] and will 
likely happen to Sol (the Sun), which is currently a yellow dwarf (G2Ⅴ), 
will become a red giant (probably M), and end as a white dwarf (A), in about 
5 billion years (short scale) from now.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_giant_branch#/media/File:Evolutionary_track_1m.svg>

> If ever I meet an astrophysicist, I'll ask him/her, "What's your
> hypothesis," and if the answer is "I haven't got one," I'll take
> that as an honest answer.

I am not an astrophysicist (yet?), but I know a bit about stars.
 
F’up2 sci.astro

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#423942

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Dorothy J Heydt amok-crossposted across 4 newsgroups, 1 outside the Big 8:
> >
> > […] there used to be a saying among classic (I mean Greco-Roman times),
> > that three astronomical objects shone red: Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but
> > not as red)  Sirius is certainly not red today, and current astrophysics
> > has no explanation for a star turning from bright red to bright blue-
> > white.  […]
> 
> Yes, it has.  For example, there is the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB) where 
> a *red* giant becomes a *white* dwarf

But it's supposed to take about 100000 years to go from red giant to
white dwarf, not 2000 years.

> (a blue tinge can also be caused by Terra’s atmosphere).

And red, too, as anyone who looks at Sirius will note.  But how come
Antares doesn't show blue tinge?

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

#423959

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

>> Dorothy J Heydt [wrote]:
>> > […] there used to be a saying among classic (I mean Greco-Roman times),
>> > that three astronomical objects shone red: Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter
>> > (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly not red today, and current
>> > astrophysics has no explanation for a star turning from bright red to
>> > bright blue-white.  […]
>> 
>> Yes, it has.  For example, there is the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB)
>> where a *red* giant becomes a *white* dwarf
> 
> But it's supposed to take about 100000 years to go from red giant to
> white dwarf, not 2000 years.

From where did you get this figure?

We do not know where Sirius (which is actually a binary star system) came 
from, and what the mass of the original star was.
 
>> (a blue tinge can also be caused by Terra’s atmosphere).
> 
> And red, too, as anyone who looks at Sirius will note.

Maybe to some people in some locations when it rises or sets.  I have never 
observed Sirius to appear red[dish] from Central Europe, not even when it 
was rising.

It matters how long the path through the atmosphere is, and what the 
atmospheric conditions are (e.g. air pollution), as Rayleigh scattering by 
air molecules and particles scatters light of shorter wavelengths (e.g. 
blueish light) more than that of greater wavelengths (i.e. reddish light).  
Thus, the longer the atmospheric path, the more reddish does the light 
appear (see also: sunrise/sunset, lunar eclipse, and blood/harvest moon).  

This is actually given as one of the more likely explanations for the color 
discrepancy: ancient astronomers whose reports this “saying” was based on 
looked at Sirius at a different angle.

See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Colour_controversy>

> But how come Antares doesn't show blue tinge?

Because of what I explained before, a star that is emitting white light 
(i.e. equally on all wavelengths of the visible spectrum) can easily appear 
blue-white when its light passes on a short path through an Terranish 
atmosphere.  That is not so easy with a star that is mostly emitting red 
light (emission maximum towards the red end of the visible spectrum).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering>

F’up2 sci.astro *again* (this has *nothing* to do with relativity, little 
with physics)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#423967

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 5:24:07 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> 
> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.

I didn't write it:  the google editor did it.  Don't get your panties in a
bunch.

> > > Dorothy J Heydt [wrote]:
> > > >
> > > > […] there used to be a saying among classic (I mean Greco-Roman times),
> > > > that three astronomical objects shone red: Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter
> > > > (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly not red today, and current
> > > > astrophysics has no explanation for a star turning from bright red to
> > > > bright blue-white.  […]
> > > 
> > > Yes, it has.  For example, there is the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB)
> > > where a *red* giant becomes a *white* dwarf
> > 
> > But it's supposed to take about 100000 years to go from red giant to
> > white dwarf, not 2000 years.
> 
> From where did you get this figure?

Burnham's Celestial Handbook, Vol. 1, p. 393.

> We do not know where Sirius (which is actually a binary star system) came 
> from, and what the mass of the original star was.

I assume you're referring to Sirius B.  We DO know that Sirius B is a very
hot white dwarf, therefore relatively "recent"
 
> > > (a blue tinge can also be caused by Terra’s atmosphere).
> > 
> > And red, too, as anyone who looks at Sirius will note.
> 
> Maybe to some people in some locations when it rises or sets.  I have never 
> observed Sirius to appear red[dish] from Central Europe, not even when it 
> was rising.

Not just red, but flashing red and blue due to atmospheric turbulence.

> It matters how long the path through the atmosphere is, and what the 
> atmospheric conditions are (e.g. air pollution), as Rayleigh scattering by 
> air molecules and particles scatters light of shorter wavelengths (e.g. 
> blueish light) more than that of greater wavelengths (i.e. reddish light).  
> Thus, the longer the atmospheric path, the more reddish does the light 
> appear (see also: sunrise/sunset, lunar eclipse, and blood/harvest moon).  

Those effects aren't what I was referring to.

> This is actually given as one of the more likely explanations for the color 
> discrepancy: ancient astronomers whose reports this “saying” was based on 
> looked at Sirius at a different angle.
> 
> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Colour_controversy>
> 
> > But how come Antares doesn't show blue tinge?
>
> Because of what I explained before, a star that is emitting white light 
> (i.e. equally on all wavelengths of the visible spectrum) can easily appear 
> blue-white when its light passes on a short path through an Terranish 
> atmosphere.  That is not so easy with a star that is mostly emitting red 
> light (emission maximum towards the red end of the visible spectrum).
> 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering>

Sirius appears high in the sky at Mediterranean latitudes, so that's baloney.

> F’up2 sci.astro *again* (this has *nothing* to do with relativity, little 
> with physics)
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

What about the possibility of another companion star close to Sirius A?
This was also mentioned in the Wiki article.  It could steal matter and
flare up.

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

#423969

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 5:24:07 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> wrote:

See below.

>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars'
>> > Lahn wrote:
>> 
>> Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
> 
> I didn't write it:  the google editor did it.  Don't get your panties in a
> bunch.

*You* posted it.  *You* could have shortened it before if *you* wanted to.  
Do not blame others for *your* failure.

That also includes your mindless full-quoting.  It may be acceptable in 
Google Groups groups, but not in Usenet where you are posting to.
 
>> > > Dorothy J Heydt [wrote]:
>> > > > […] there used to be a saying among classic (I mean Greco-Roman
>> > > > [times),
>> > > > that three astronomical objects shone red: Sirius, Mars, and
>> > > > Jupiter
>> > > > (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly not red today, and current
>> > > > astrophysics has no explanation for a star turning from bright red
>> > > > to bright blue-white.  […]
>> > > Yes, it has.  For example, there is the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB)
>> > > where a *red* giant becomes a *white* dwarf
>> > But it's supposed to take about 100000 years to go from red giant to
>> > white dwarf, not 2000 years.
>> From where did you get this figure?
> 
> Burnham's Celestial Handbook, Vol. 1, p. 393.

That was published in 1978; it is almost 40 years out of date now.
(I won’t even bother checking the page to see if you misunderstood it.)
 
>> We do not know where Sirius (which is actually a binary star system) came
>> from, and what the mass of the original star was.
> 
> I assume you're referring to Sirius B.

Yes.

> We DO know that Sirius B is a very hot white dwarf,

Yes, so what?

> therefore relatively "recent"

That is nonsense; it takes *billions of years* for a white dwarf to cool.
But if it would make sense, it would only *support* my argument.
  
>> > > (a blue tinge can also be caused by Terra’s atmosphere).
>> > And red, too, as anyone who looks at Sirius will note.
>> Maybe to some people in some locations when it rises or sets.  I have
>> never observed Sirius to appear red[dish] from Central Europe, not even
>> when it was rising.
> 
> Not just red, but flashing red and blue due to atmospheric turbulence.

That too.
 
>> It matters how long the path through the atmosphere is, and what the
>> atmospheric conditions are (e.g. air pollution), as Rayleigh scattering
>> by air molecules and particles scatters light of shorter wavelengths
>> (e.g. blueish light) more than that of greater wavelengths (i.e. reddish
>> light). Thus, the longer the atmospheric path, the more reddish does the
>> light appear (see also: sunrise/sunset, lunar eclipse, and blood/harvest
>> moon).
> 
> Those effects aren't what I was referring to.

However, atmospheric turbulence has a greater effect if the light path is 
longer.  That is why the theory emphasizes the rising of the star (system).
 
>> This is actually given as one of the more likely explanations for the
>> color discrepancy: ancient astronomers whose reports this “saying” was
>> based on looked at Sirius at a different angle.
>> 
>> See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Colour_controversy>
>> […]
> Sirius appears high in the sky at Mediterranean latitudes,

Nonsense.  Sirius rises and sets there like almost everywhere else on this 
planet.  (One does not need to be an astronomer to know that.)

> so that's baloney.

As my reference shows (if only you had read it), it is a theory that was 
posited by an eminent astronomer and physicist, published in a peer-reviewed 
journal of astronomy.  You are evidently neither, so I suggest you shut up 
until you have *learned* what you are talking about.

>> F’up2 sci.astro *again* (this has *nothing* to do with relativity, little
>> with physics)

Which part of that did you not get?  F’up2 set again.
 
> What about the possibility of another companion star close to Sirius A?
> This was also mentioned in the Wiki article.  It could steal matter and
> flare up.

I am not going to entertain your speculations as long as you keep ignoring 
what is on-topic in the newsgroup that you are posting to.  (Again this has 
nothing to do with Google Groups – which is technically flawed indeed –, it 
is *your* failure.)

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#423972

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 8:48:18 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 5:24:07 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
> > wrote:
> 
> See below.
> 
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 10:08:37 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars'
> > > > Lahn wrote:
> > > 
> > > Attribution _line_, not attribution novel.
> > 
> > I didn't write it:  the google editor did it.  Don't get your panties in a
> > bunch.
> 
> *You* posted it.  *You* could have shortened it before if *you* wanted to.  
> Do not blame others for *your* failure.

Put a sock in it, you compulsive nitwit.

> That also includes your mindless full-quoting.  It may be acceptable in 
> Google Groups groups, but not in Usenet where you are posting to.

I'm not on usenet, bumblehead.

> > > > > Dorothy J Heydt [wrote]:
> > > > > > […] there used to be a saying among classic (I mean Greco-Roman
> > > > > > [times),
> > > > > > that three astronomical objects shone red: Sirius, Mars, and
> > > > > > Jupiter
> > > > > > (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly not red today, and current
> > > > > > astrophysics has no explanation for a star turning from bright red
> > > > > > to bright blue-white.  […]
> > > > > Yes, it has.  For example, there is the Asymptotic Giant Branch (AGB)
> > > > > where a *red* giant becomes a *white* dwarf
> > > >
> > > > But it's supposed to take about 100000 years to go from red giant to
> > > > white dwarf, not 2000 years.
> > >
> > > From where did you get this figure?
> > 
> > Burnham's Celestial Handbook, Vol. 1, p. 393.
> 
> That was published in 1978; it is almost 40 years out of date now.
> (I won’t even bother checking the page to see if you misunderstood it.)

So 40 years is significant to 100000 years?  You really do exhibit ADHD
behavior.

> > > We do not know where Sirius (which is actually a binary star system) came
> > > from, and what the mass of the original star was.
> > 
> > I assume you're referring to Sirius B.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > We DO know that Sirius B is a very hot white dwarf,
> 
> Yes, so what?
> 
> > therefore relatively "recent"
> 
> That is nonsense; it takes *billions of years* for a white dwarf to cool.
> But if it would make sense, it would only *support* my argument.

What "argument," beanhead?  Let's see YOUR references.

> > > > > (a blue tinge can also be caused by Terra’s atmosphere).
> > > >
> > > > And red, too, as anyone who looks at Sirius will note.
> > >
> > > Maybe to some people in some locations when it rises or sets.  I have
> > > never observed Sirius to appear red[dish] from Central Europe, not even
> > > when it was rising.
> > 
> > Not just red, but flashing red and blue due to atmospheric turbulence.
> 
> That too.
>  
> > > It matters how long the path through the atmosphere is, and what the
> > > atmospheric conditions are (e.g. air pollution), as Rayleigh scattering
> > > by air molecules and particles scatters light of shorter wavelengths
> > > (e.g. blueish light) more than that of greater wavelengths (i.e. reddish
> > > light). Thus, the longer the atmospheric path, the more reddish does the
> > > light appear (see also: sunrise/sunset, lunar eclipse, and blood/harvest
> > > moon).
> > 
> > Those effects aren't what I was referring to.
> 
> However, atmospheric turbulence has a greater effect if the light path is 
> longer.  That is why the theory emphasizes the rising of the star (system).

I'm sure this has been known ever since man started looking at the stars,
so your "theory" is bull plop.

> > > This is actually given as one of the more likely explanations for the
> > > color discrepancy: ancient astronomers whose reports this “saying” was
> > > based on looked at Sirius at a different angle.
> > > 
> > > See also: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius#Colour_controversy>
> > > […]
> >
> > Sirius appears high in the sky at Mediterranean latitudes,
> 
> Nonsense.  Sirius rises and sets there like almost everywhere else on this 
> planet.  (One does not need to be an astronomer to know that.)

What an idiot!  Do you REALLY believe people just looked at it when it rose
or set?

> > so that's baloney.
> 
> As my reference shows (if only you had read it),

I DID read it, bozo-brain, and it is bull plop.

> it is a theory that was posited by an eminent astronomer and physicist,
> published in a peer-reviewed journal of astronomy.

Just goes to show that ANYONE can publish crap.

> You are evidently neither, so I suggest you shut up 
> until you have *learned* what you are talking about.

Shut up yourself, cretin.

> > > F’up2 sci.astro *again* (this has *nothing* to do with relativity, little
> > > with physics)
> 
> Which part of that did you not get?  F’up2 set again.

Go pound sand, ADHD-head.

> > What about the possibility of another companion star close to Sirius A?
> > This was also mentioned in the Wiki article.  It could steal matter and
> > flare up.
> 
> I am not going to entertain your speculations as long as you keep ignoring 
> what is on-topic in the newsgroup that you are posting to.  (Again this has 
> nothing to do with Google Groups – which is technically flawed indeed –, it 
> is *your* failure.)

You seem to prove you are a dimwit with every post you make.

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

#424505

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:

>As for the colors of planets (as seen through atmosphrere from
>Earth, mind you), there used to be a saying among classic (I mean
>Greco-Roman times), that three astronomical objects shone red:
>Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly
>not red today, and current astrophysics has no explanation for a
>star turning from bright red to bright blue-white.  If ever I
>meet an astrophysicist, I'll ask him/her, "What's your
>hypothesis," and if the answer is "I haven't got one," I'll take
>that as an honest answer.

Three red objects?  How about Antares ("not Mars") and Betelguese?
-- 
We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.

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

#424736

Greg Goss wrote:
> 
> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> 
> >As for the colors of planets (as seen through atmosphrere from
> >Earth, mind you), there used to be a saying among classic (I mean
> >Greco-Roman times), that three astronomical objects shone red:
> >Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly
> >not red today, and current astrophysics has no explanation for a
> >star turning from bright red to bright blue-white.  If ever I
> >meet an astrophysicist, I'll ask him/her, "What's your
> >hypothesis," and if the answer is "I haven't got one," I'll take
> >that as an honest answer.
> 
> Three red objects?  How about Antares ("not Mars") and Betelguese?
> --
> We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.


Pluto is the color Red. 


haven't you heard????

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

#425048

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Greg Goss wrote:
> >
> > djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >
> > >As for the colors of planets (as seen through atmosphrere from
> > >Earth, mind you), there used to be a saying among classic (I mean
> > >Greco-Roman times), that three astronomical objects shone red:
> > >Sirius, Mars, and Jupiter (but not as red)  Sirius is certainly
> > >not red today, and current astrophysics has no explanation for a
> > >star turning from bright red to bright blue-white.  If ever I
> > >meet an astrophysicist, I'll ask him/her, "What's your
> > >hypothesis," and if the answer is "I haven't got one," I'll take
> > >that as an honest answer.
> >
> > Three red objects?  How about Antares ("not Mars") and Betelguese?
> > --
> > We are geeks.  Resistance is voltage over current.
> 
> Pluto is the color Red.
> 
> haven't you heard????

Here is the latest picture of Pluto..
What color is the surface of Pluto look like to you?

https://img.purch.com/h/1400/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA2Ny83NTUvb3JpZ2luYWwvbmV3LWhvcml6b25zLXBsdXRvLWZseWJ5LmpwZz8xNTAwMDY4MTg4




https://www.space.com/37497-new-horizons-pluto-amazing-flyby-videos-anniversary.html

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

#425050

The Starmaker wrote:

>> Pluto is the color Red. haven't you heard????
> 
> Here is the latest picture of Pluto..
> What color is the surface of Pluto look like to you?

Does not matter, so far away from Sun, the only light source, as on Moon, 
that you can't count on the right colors. Buy a brain.

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

#425382

"Garfield Dieter" wrote:

> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Pluto is the color Red. haven't you heard????
>> Here is the latest picture of Pluto..
>> What color is the surface of Pluto look like to you?
> 
> Does not matter, so far away from Sun, the only light source, as on Moon,
> that you can't count on the right colors. Buy a brain.

Unsurprisingly, the ’nym-shifting troll has it wrong again.

Ever heard of ambient light rendering?  Thanks to the inverse square law 
that governs the distribution of light, you can easily render Pluto etc. as 
if Sol was closer to it, revealing the true colors.  There is *free* 
astronomy software like Celestia that can do it.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

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

#425059

pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, July 15, 2017 at 11:19:09 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> > Here is the latest picture of Pluto..
> > What color is the surface of Pluto look like to you?
> 
> > https://www.space.com/37497-new-horizons-pluto-amazing-flyby-videos-anniversary.html
> 
> Didn't you bother to read the article? If you did, then you 'forgot' to mention this quote...
> 
> "A caveat: The newly released videos don't show exactly what a human visitor to the Pluto system would see. In both of them, topographic relief has been exaggerated by two to three times, and surface colors have been enhanced, to highlight topography and detail, NASA officials said."


They only enhanced the one color contained on Pluto, and that color is Red.


If you enhance Mars, you just get a Redder color.



en·hance
in'hans,en'hans/
verb
verb: enhance; 3rd person present: enhances; past tense: enhanced; past participle: enhanced; gerund or present participle: enhancing

    intensify, increase, 




intensify! increase! not change.



Proof, that I'm the only sign of intellegent life on Earth.



I've had it wit stupid people...and a science groups of all places!

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web