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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470210 > unrolled thread

How many star are there in the universe?

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

Contents

  How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-01 23:57 -0700
    Re: How many star are there in the universe? Whisper <beaver999@ozemail.com> - 2018-09-02 17:21 +1000
      Re: How many star are there in the universe? mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 13:42 -0700
        Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-02 21:16 -0700
          Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-03 12:26 +0200
            Re: How many star are there in the universe? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-09-03 03:38 -0700
            Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-04 10:35 -0700
              Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-04 22:44 +0200
                Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-04 23:48 -0700
                  Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-06 00:48 +0200
                    Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-06 09:44 -0700
                      Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-06 09:49 -0700
                        Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-06 10:50 -0700
                    Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-06 20:52 -0700
                      Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 05:55 +0200
                        Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-06 22:39 -0700
                          Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 08:10 +0200
                            Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-07 08:53 -0700
                              Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 19:15 +0200
                                Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-07 10:37 -0700
                                  Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-07 19:52 +0200
                                    Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-07 14:17 -0700
                                      Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-13 23:32 -0700
                                        Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-15 17:29 -0700
                                          Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-16 10:36 +0200
                                          Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-16 23:14 -0700
                                            Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-17 17:39 -0700
                                              Re: How many star are there in the universe? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-09-18 09:06 +0200
                                Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-07 11:05 -0700
                                Re: How many star are there in the universe? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-07 14:29 -0700
    Re: How many star are there in the universe? consequently7990662@gmail.com - 2018-09-02 15:17 -0700
    Re: How many star are there in the universe? numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-09-06 22:43 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#470210 — How many star are there in the universe?

Actually, I don't know how many stars there are in the universe..

but I can tell you the number is an even number.

For every star born, a twin is born.

You can actually draw a straight line between one star and it's twin.

For every star that dies, it's twin dies also.

In other words, our sun has a twin. An exact twin, an identical twin if you will.

That twin might be at the other side somewhere but a straight line will point to it.

All stars have twins that a straight line can point to.

The Starmaker

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#470212

On 2/09/2018 4:57 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Actually, I don't know how many stars there are in the universe..
> 
> but I can tell you the number is an even number.
> 
> For every star born, a twin is born.
> 
> You can actually draw a straight line between one star and it's twin.
> 
> For every star that dies, it's twin dies also.
> 
> In other words, our sun has a twin. An exact twin, an identical twin if you will.
> 
> That twin might be at the other side somewhere but a straight line will point to it.
> 
> All stars have twins that a straight line can point to.
> 
> The Starmaker
> 

Tell us something we don't know.



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

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

#470278

On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:21:28 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> On 2/09/2018 4:57 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Actually, I don't know how many stars there are in the universe..
> > 
> > but I can tell you the number is an even number.
> > 
> > For every star born, a twin is born.
> > 
> > You can actually draw a straight line between one star and it's twin.
> > 
> > For every star that dies, it's twin dies also.
> > 
> > In other words, our sun has a twin. An exact twin, an identical twin if you will.
> > 
> > That twin might be at the other side somewhere but a straight line will point to it.
> > 
> > All stars have twins that a straight line can point to.
> > 
> > The Starmaker
> > 
> 
> Tell us something we don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> https://www.avg.com

At the absolute beginning you need atoms for galaxies and
their stars to be arranged into their initial order.
How do we get matter land into the first conditions of galaxies
and their stars? How does the first matter transform into them?

Mitchell Raemsch

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

#470316

mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, September 2, 2018 at 12:21:28 AM UTC-7, Whisper wrote:
> > On 2/09/2018 4:57 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Actually, I don't know how many stars there are in the universe..
> > >
> > > but I can tell you the number is an even number.
> > >
> > > For every star born, a twin is born.
> > >
> > > You can actually draw a straight line between one star and it's twin.
> > >
> > > For every star that dies, it's twin dies also.
> > >
> > > In other words, our sun has a twin. An exact twin, an identical twin if you will.
> > >
> > > That twin might be at the other side somewhere but a straight line will point to it.
> > >
> > > All stars have twins that a straight line can point to.
> > >
> > > The Starmaker
> > >
> >
> > Tell us something we don't know.
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > https://www.avg.com
> 
> At the absolute beginning you need atoms for galaxies and
> their stars to be arranged into their initial order.
> How do we get matter land into the first conditions of galaxies
> and their stars? How does the first matter transform into them?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch


the big bang is the expansion of space...

before the big bang was the creation of matter...to be 

projectile into ...space.


https://media2.giphy.com/media/26tOZ42Mg6pbTUPHW/giphy.gif

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

#470329

The Starmaker wrote:
> before the big bang was the creation of matter...to be 
> 
> projectile into ...space.

It was the other way around:  The event of the Big Bang made the FORMATION
(not: creation) of matter as we know it possible in the first place.

Because if, for example, temperature and pressure are too high, matter as we
know it cannot exist.

You would be well-advised to familiarize yourself with the

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

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#470332

On Monday, 3 September 2018 12:26:08 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn  wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > before the big bang was the creation of matter...to be 
> > 
> > projectile into ...space.
> 
> It was the other way around:  The event of the Big Bang made the FORMATION
> (not: creation) of matter as we know it possible in the first place.

Which, precisely, experiments are confirming this bullshit,
poor halfbrain?

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

#470465

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > before the big bang was the creation of matter...to be
> >
> > projectile into ...space.
> 
> It was the other way around:  The event of the Big Bang made the FORMATION
> (not: creation) of matter as we know it possible in the first place.
> 
> Because if, for example, temperature and pressure are too high, matter as we
> know it cannot exist.


You seem to lack any understanding how the universe works..

There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.


We exist because of 'not too high', 'not too low', 'just right' conditions. 


So, your example "temperature and pressure are too high," doesn't apply to our universe.


Temperature and pressure are...just right.  


Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.

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

#470481

The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> before the big bang was the creation of matter...to be
>>> 
>>> projectile into ...space.
>> 
>> It was the other way around:  The event of the Big Bang made the
>> FORMATION (not: creation) of matter as we know it possible in the first
>> place.
>> 
>> Because if, for example, temperature and pressure are too high, matter
>> as we know it cannot exist.
> 
> You seem to lack any understanding how the universe works..

That only seems to be so.  You are looking in a mirror (while talking to a
physics student standing behind you) instead.

> There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.

Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
the reason we exist.

As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:

<http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>

> We exist because of 'not too high', 'not too low', 'just right'
> conditions.

There is much more to that.  Our *expanding* universe has not always been as
it is today.

> So, your example "temperature and pressure are too high," doesn't apply
> to our universe.

But it does.  The CMB is observational evidence of that.

> Temperature and pressure are...just right.

They are “just right” NOW (and here).  But this not entirely a coincidence;
it has a lot to do with the state of the universe at its beginning.

> Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.

(Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
comes from.  Fascinating.)

In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
bedtime story.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#470514

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> before the big bang was the creation of matter...to be
> >>>
> >>> projectile into ...space.
> >>
> >> It was the other way around:  The event of the Big Bang made the
> >> FORMATION (not: creation) of matter as we know it possible in the first
> >> place.
> >>
> >> Because if, for example, temperature and pressure are too high, matter
> >> as we know it cannot exist.
> >
> > You seem to lack any understanding how the universe works..
> 
> That only seems to be so.  You are looking in a mirror (while talking to a
> physics student standing behind you) instead.
> 
> > There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.
> 
> Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
> ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
> pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
> the reason we exist.
> 
> As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:
> 
> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
> 
> > We exist because of 'not too high', 'not too low', 'just right'
> > conditions.
> 
> There is much more to that.  Our *expanding* universe has not always been as
> it is today.
> 
> > So, your example "temperature and pressure are too high," doesn't apply
> > to our universe.
> 
> But it does.  The CMB is observational evidence of that.
> 
> > Temperature and pressure are...just right.
> 
> They are “just right” NOW (and here).  But this not entirely a coincidence;
> it has a lot to do with the state of the universe at its beginning.
> 
> > Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.
> 
> (Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
> comes from.  Fascinating.)
> 
> In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
> article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
> tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
> bedtime story.
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.


Feyman Lectures is a textbook copyright in the early 1960's...before the Beatles...you don't have any up to date textbooks????

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

#470585

The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.
>>
>> Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
>> ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
>> pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
>> the reason we exist.
>>
>> As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:
>>
>> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
>>
>> […]
>>> Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.
>>
>> (Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
>> comes from.  Fascinating.)
>> 
>> In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
>> article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
>> tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
>> bedtime story.
>> […]
>
> Feyman Lectures is a textbook copyright in the early 1960's...before the Beatles...

Newton’s Laws of Motion are from 1684.

You have not read what I referred you to, have you?

> you don't have any up to date textbooks????

I have, but not only do they not say anything else in that regard, and the
online version of the Feynman Lectures is up-to-date (read the copyright),
but also it is *your* task to read a textbook before you make such
ridiculous claims.

.
.
.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#470635

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.
> >>
> >> Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
> >> ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
> >> pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
> >> the reason we exist.
> >>
> >> As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:
> >>
> >> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
> >>
> >> […]
> >>> Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.
> >>
> >> (Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
> >> comes from.  Fascinating.)
> >>
> >> In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
> >> article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
> >> tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
> >> bedtime story.
> >> […]
> >
> > Feyman Lectures is a textbook copyright in the early 1960's...before the Beatles...
> 
> Newton’s Laws of Motion are from 1684.
> 
> You have not read what I referred you to, have you?
> 
> > you don't have any up to date textbooks????
> 
> I have, but not only do they not say anything else in that regard, and the
> online version of the Feynman Lectures is up-to-date (read the copyright),
> but also it is *your* task to read a textbook before you make such
> ridiculous claims.
> 
> .
> .
> .
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.


Fascinating.

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

#470636

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >>> There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.
> > >>
> > >> Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
> > >> ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
> > >> pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
> > >> the reason we exist.
> > >>
> > >> As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:
> > >>
> > >> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
> > >>
> > >> […]
> > >>> Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.
> > >>
> > >> (Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
> > >> comes from.  Fascinating.)
> > >>
> > >> In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
> > >> article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
> > >> tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
> > >> bedtime story.
> > >> […]
> > >
> > > Feyman Lectures is a textbook copyright in the early 1960's...before the Beatles...
> >
> > Newton’s Laws of Motion are from 1684.
> >
> > You have not read what I referred you to, have you?
> >
> > > you don't have any up to date textbooks????
> >
> > I have, but not only do they not say anything else in that regard, and the
> > online version of the Feynman Lectures is up-to-date (read the copyright),
> > but also it is *your* task to read a textbook before you make such
> > ridiculous claims.
> >
> > .
> > .
> > .
> >
> > --
> > PointedEars
> >
> > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> 
> Fascinating.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=cFods1KSWsQ

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

#470641

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > >
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > >>> There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
> > > >> ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
> > > >> pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
> > > >> the reason we exist.
> > > >>
> > > >> As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:
> > > >>
> > > >> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
> > > >>
> > > >> […]
> > > >>> Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.
> > > >>
> > > >> (Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
> > > >> comes from.  Fascinating.)
> > > >>
> > > >> In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
> > > >> article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
> > > >> tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
> > > >> bedtime story.
> > > >> […]
> > > >
> > > > Feyman Lectures is a textbook copyright in the early 1960's...before the Beatles...
> > >
> > > Newton’s Laws of Motion are from 1684.
> > >
> > > You have not read what I referred you to, have you?
> > >
> > > > you don't have any up to date textbooks????
> > >
> > > I have, but not only do they not say anything else in that regard, and the
> > > online version of the Feynman Lectures is up-to-date (read the copyright),
> > > but also it is *your* task to read a textbook before you make such
> > > ridiculous claims.
> > >
> > > .
> > > .
> > > .
> > >
> > > --
> > > PointedEars
> > >
> > > Twitter: @PointedEars2
> > > Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
> >
> > Fascinating.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=cFods1KSWsQ


I notice a pattern, is there any connection between the word "Fascinating." and the guy with the pointed ears????


or, am i just reading into these things...


Fascinating.

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

#470770

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >>> There is no such thing as "are too high" in our universe.
> >>
> >> Regarding states of matter, there is.  For example, Sol is a basically a
> >> ball of hot *plasma* because it is “too hot” and there is “too much
> >> pressure” in there for atoms to exist.  Therefore, stellar nuclear fusion –
> >> the reason we exist.
> >>
> >> As usual, Richard Feynman has explained this beautifully:
> >>
> >> <http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_01.html#Ch1-S2>
> >>
> >> […]
> >>> Read the blond chick and the 3 little bears.
> >>
> >> (Ah, *this* is where the term “Goldilocks zone” for the habitable zone
> >> comes from.  Fascinating.)
> >>
> >> In addition to the Feynman Lectures referred above, read the Wikipedia
> >> article I referred you to, and follow the references ltherein.  This will
> >> tell you a lot more about our universe, and why you exist, than knowing this
> >> bedtime story.
> >> […]
> >
> > Feyman Lectures is a textbook copyright in the early 1960's...before the Beatles...
> 
> Newton’s Laws of Motion are from 1684.
> 
> You have not read what I referred you to, have you?
> 
> > you don't have any up to date textbooks????
> 
> I have, but not only do they not say anything else in that regard, and the
> online version of the Feynman Lectures is up-to-date (read the copyright),
> but also it is *your* task to read a textbook before you make such
> ridiculous claims.
> 


Since you seem to be well versed with Richard Feynman...here is a simple muliple choice question,


Where do trees come from? 

A] from the air 

B] from the ground

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

#470771

The Starmaker wrote:
> Where do trees come from? 
> 
> A] from the air 
> 
> B] from the ground

C] None of the above

Nice try, though.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#470797

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Where do trees come from?
> >
> > A] from the air
> >
> > B] from the ground
> 
> C] None of the above
> 
> Nice try, though.
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.


Maybe you didn't understand the question...


Here is Feynman quote: "the tree is coming out of the air? They surely come out of the ground! No, they come out of the air!" 



So, I repeat the question:

Where do trees come from?

A] from the air

B] from the ground

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

#470804

The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Where do trees come from?
>>> 
>>> A] from the air
>>> 
>>> B] from the ground
>> 
>> C] None of the above
>> 
>> Nice try, though. […]
> 
> Maybe you didn't understand the question...

Or maybe your question was nonsense to begin with.

> Here is Feynman quote: "the tree is coming out of the air? They surely
> come out of the ground! No, they come out of the air!"
> 
> So, I repeat the question:
> 
> Where do trees come from?
> 
> A] from the air
> 
> B] from the ground

Feynman’s statement is from a BBC *radio interview* “Fun to Imagine” that he
gave *for interested laymen* in 1983.  The full transcript is available online:

<http://antoine.wojdyla.fr/assets/traductions/feynman_fun_en.html>

The context is this:

| […]
| When it get started, why is that the wood has been surviving all this time
| with the oxygen all this time, and it didn't do it earlier or something?
| Where did I get this from? Why did it came (**) from the tree. And the
| substance of the tree is carbon, and where does it come from? That comes
| from the air, it's carbon dioxide from the air. People cut trees and think
| that it comes from the ground. The plant grows out from the ground. But if
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| you asked "where the substance come from?", you find out where does it
| come from (**) the tree is coming out of the air? They surely come out of
| the ground! No, they come out of the air! The carbon dioxide in the air
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| goes into the tree, and changes it, kicking out the oxygen, and pushing
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| the oxygen away from the carbon, and leaving the carbon substance (topped
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| with water. Water comes out of the ground, you see; only is that it has to
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| get there out of the (**) air, it came down from the sky. So in fact most
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| of the tree is out of the ground -I'm sorry: it's out of the air! There's
                                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| a little bit from the ground: some minerals and so forth.

Your problem, like that of many other crackpots here, is that you have not
learned to read (perceive) *comprehensively*.  You do not understand that
*the context* of a statement is *vital* in order to understand it *properly*.

Until you have learned to overcome that personal shortcoming *by yourself*
or a person you can talk to (studying allows this), you will forever be
mystified by science.  Because teaching you how to read comprehensively by
using a medium that requires the ability of comprehensive reading from you
for you to understand the teaching, like Usenet, is obviously futile.  (And
so was this posting regarding you, but at least now the truth is where it
needs to be.)

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#470830

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Where do trees come from?
> >>>
> >>> A] from the air
> >>>
> >>> B] from the ground
> >>
> >> C] None of the above
> >>
> >> Nice try, though. […]
> >
> > Maybe you didn't understand the question...
> 
> Or maybe your question was nonsense to begin with.
> 
> > Here is Feynman quote: "the tree is coming out of the air? They surely
> > come out of the ground! No, they come out of the air!"
> >
> > So, I repeat the question:
> >
> > Where do trees come from?
> >
> > A] from the air
> >
> > B] from the ground
> 
> Feynman’s statement is from a BBC *radio interview* “Fun to Imagine” that he
> gave *for interested laymen* in 1983.  The full transcript is available online:
> 
> <http://antoine.wojdyla.fr/assets/traductions/feynman_fun_en.html>
> 
> The context is this:
> 
> | […]
> | When it get started, why is that the wood has been surviving all this time
> | with the oxygen all this time, and it didn't do it earlier or something?
> | Where did I get this from? Why did it came (**) from the tree. And the
> | substance of the tree is carbon, and where does it come from? That comes
> | from the air, it's carbon dioxide from the air. People cut trees and think
> | that it comes from the ground. The plant grows out from the ground. But if
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | you asked "where the substance come from?", you find out where does it
> | come from (**) the tree is coming out of the air? They surely come out of
> | the ground! No, they come out of the air! The carbon dioxide in the air
>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | goes into the tree, and changes it, kicking out the oxygen, and pushing
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | the oxygen away from the carbon, and leaving the carbon substance (topped
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | with water. Water comes out of the ground, you see; only is that it has to
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | get there out of the (**) air, it came down from the sky. So in fact most
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | of the tree is out of the ground -I'm sorry: it's out of the air! There's
>                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> | a little bit from the ground: some minerals and so forth.
> 
> Your problem, like that of many other crackpots here, is that you have not
> learned to read (perceive) *comprehensively*.  You do not understand that
> *the context* of a statement is *vital* in order to understand it *properly*.
> 
> Until you have learned to overcome that personal shortcoming *by yourself*
> or a person you can talk to (studying allows this), you will forever be
> mystified by science.  Because teaching you how to read comprehensively by
> using a medium that requires the ability of comprehensive reading from you
> for you to understand the teaching, like Usenet, is obviously futile.  (And
> so was this posting regarding you, but at least now the truth is where it
> needs to be.)
> 
> --
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.



Sorry, my mistake. I was under the false impression you were 'well versed' on the works of Richard Feynman.

I thought by now you read all his works. It appears that all you read was one PDF of Feynman Lectures.

Well, now that you a little more familiar with the subject of the question...



I'll repeat the question:

 Where do trees come from?

 A] from the air

 B] from the ground

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

#470842

The Starmaker trolled:
> Sorry, my mistake. I was under the false impression you were 'well
> versed' on the works of Richard Feynman.

Blithering idiot.  An obscure BBC radio interview given by Richard Feynman
is not a work of Richard Feynman.

> I thought by now you read all his works. It appears that all you read was
> one PDF of Feynman Lectures.

The online version of the Feynman Lectures on Physics is not provided as a
PDF document, and I have not cited such.

You are merely arguing from your incredible ignorance.

> Well, now that you a little more familiar with the subject of the
> question... […]

FOAD.

F’up2 alt.1d

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#470850

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker trolled:
> > Sorry, my mistake. I was under the false impression you were 'well
> > versed' on the works of Richard Feynman.
> 
> Blithering idiot.  An obscure BBC radio interview given by Richard Feynman
> is not a work of Richard Feynman.
> 
> > I thought by now you read all his works. It appears that all you read was
> > one PDF of Feynman Lectures.


What is the difference between a "radio interview" given by Richard Feynman and a Feynman Lecture?


They are both in fact...lectures!


Both given by Richard Feynman.
Both published in books.

Maybe...you don't know the definition of the word...lecture.



lec·ture
'lek(t)SH?r/
noun
1.
an educational talk to an audience, ...


Maybe you didn't find the "radio interview"???? educational...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifk6iuLQk28


I'll repeat the question:

 Where do trees come from?

 A] from the air

 B] from the ground


Maybe you don't understand the question...I'm confused, I don't know the answer...do trees come from the air or the ground?



I mean, even Feynman seems to be confused...
"the tree is coming out of the air? They surely come out of the ground! No, they come out of the air!" 

maybe he misspoke...and he corrected himself...or he is lying...but, I'm confused.






Do trees come from the air or from the ground?

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web