Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390933 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-25 16:10 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-09-02 18:46 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 36 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:10 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 16:23 -0700
Re: Kepler Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-26 04:13 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 16:28 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 17:05 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700
Re: Kepler Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 11:52 +1000
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 18:56 -0700
Re: Kepler Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:03 +1000
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:16 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:21 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:26 -0700
Re: Kepler Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:30 +1000
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:34 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:36 -0700
Re: Kepler Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 15:11 +1000
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 12:52 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 13:30 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 14:29 -0700
Re: Kepler Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-27 15:42 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 13:34 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:08 -0700
Re: Kepler John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:10 -0700
Re: Kepler Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 03:50 -0700
Re: Kepler Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-08-30 06:18 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 20:01 -0700
Re: Kepler jon.white.sm@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 21:19 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 12:34 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 14:14 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-08-31 09:19 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 10:20 -0700
Re: Kepler numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-02 14:44 -0700
Re: Kepler Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> - 2016-09-02 18:46 -0700
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 16:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Kepler |
| Message-ID | <ac0f7590-c5b6-40ba-b316-46864a6fce35@googlegroups.com> |
Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 16:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <778481d0-3b54-4855-b820-cebac3bbd51a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:10:45 PM UTC-5, Carl Susumu wrote: > Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. Astute observation!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 04:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ad6f4de-7915-4a4b-9305-8aa7c0671cea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390934 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:23:03 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:10:45 PM UTC-5, Carl Susumu wrote: > > Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > > Astute observation! No, actually a very obtuse observation, based on total lack of knowledge of how Kepler detected planets. Kepler was never intended to resolve planets. Rather, a certain small fraction of planets have orbits oriented such that the planet regularly transits its parent star as viewed from the Earth. By staring continuously at a patch of sky with 100,000 stars using photodetectors of extreme stability, Kepler detected the minute dips in luminosity caused by a planet transiting its parent star. A Jupiter-sized planet might cause a dip in luminosity on the order of a percent. A terrestrial planet might cause a dip in luminosity of 100 parts per million. Kepler transit curves have a highly characteristic shape. http://kepler.nasa.gov/images/aas2010-1wbLightCurves2-full.jpg A candidate planet's existence would be confirmed by detection of multiple, regularly spaced dips in luminosity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15b70f96-9e33-4264-b9dd-52a7c30f257b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
Astronomers stating that a planet has been observed using the Kepler space telescope (Nature 536, 408–409 (25 August 2016 doi:10.1038/536408a Journal of Nature Published online by Guillem Anglada-Escude) but the Kepler telescope is viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds) but the Hubble space telescope, that power is in the same order of magnitude of the Kepler space telescope, cannot view the lunar lander of the surface of the moon. For the Hubble to view an intensity on the surface of the moon would require an light source that has a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Kepler space telescope to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system which proves the astronomic observations of the Kepler space telescope are scientific hoaxes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 17:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4114f8dd-14a2-4413-8d4c-1b6b72514b17@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390935 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 6:28:54 PM UTC-5, Carl Susumu wrote: > Astronomers stating that a planet has been observed using the Kepler space telescope (Nature 536, 408–409 (25 August 2016 doi:10.1038/536408a Journal of Nature Published online by Guillem Anglada-Escude) but the Kepler telescope is viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds) but the Hubble space telescope, that power is in the same order of magnitude of the Kepler space telescope, cannot view the lunar lander of the surface of the moon. For the Hubble to view an intensity on the surface of the moon would require an light source that has a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Kepler space telescope to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system which proves the astronomic observations of the Kepler space telescope are scientific hoaxes. You are talking about Maximum Visual Acuity!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 17:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cdcca426-d845-4839-80af-8c12b39e4e82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
Domo Arigato
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 11:52 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29lmuFogujU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > > Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from seeing them. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 18:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d404cfe4-6905-4f48-97c3-8c6f837c1525@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390941 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > > > > Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > > > > Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too > small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from > seeing them. > > Sylvia Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 12:03 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29mbaFomgrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390942 |
On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: >>> >>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. >>> >> >> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too >> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from >> seeing them. >> >> Sylvia > > Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. > Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ba69b797-2357-4da0-a9d2-a4e490e086af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390944 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > >>> > >>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > >>> > >> > >> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too > >> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from > >> seeing them. > >> > >> Sylvia > > > > Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. > > > > Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the > body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is > too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a > featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. > > Sylvia. I love this stuff.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5c9b9505-f885-4aad-a9dc-0cc1aa8239a7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390948 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:17:00 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too > > >> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from > > >> seeing them. > > >> > > >> Sylvia > > > > > > Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. > > > > > > > Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the > > body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is > > too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a > > featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. > > > > Sylvia. > > I love this stuff. But yes, the corona will assume the action of the instantaneous measure and the system as a whole will act like assumed point. What is lost is the fact that the surface of the star and the maximum visual acuity that is required to see the surface is made impossible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2bba3e77-1c19-413e-84b2-0d9b6d40f491@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390944 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > >>> > >>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > >>> > >> > >> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too > >> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from > >> seeing them. > >> > >> Sylvia > > > > Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. > > > > Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the > body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is > too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a > featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. > > Sylvia. You'd think so, but what's weird is that ALL of our light on Earth is the result of the reflection of our "little light".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 12:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e29nv0Fp0t5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390950 |
On 26/08/2016 12:26 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too >>>> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from >>>> seeing them. >>>> >>>> Sylvia >>> >>> Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. >>> >> >> Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the >> body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is >> too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a >> featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. >> >> Sylvia. > > You'd think so, but what's weird is that ALL of our light on Earth is the result of the reflection of our "little light". > So you're back to gibberish. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2be965c9-8166-466b-b3e5-88f7801ca2b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390951 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:30:59 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 26/08/2016 12:26 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too > >>>> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from > >>>> seeing them. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia > >>> > >>> Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. > >>> > >> > >> Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the > >> body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is > >> too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a > >> featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > You'd think so, but what's weird is that ALL of our light on Earth is the result of the reflection of our "little light". > > > > So you're back to gibberish. > > Sylvia. No, what I'm trying to say is that there would be no life on Earth without the Sun. We are a product of the corona. The products of the Earth's reflection is invisible when compared to the overall corona of our star. Do we know its' magnitude?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-25 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <770fc385-b62e-4fda-a1cd-d9a798b1460c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390952 |
On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:34:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:30:59 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 26/08/2016 12:26 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too > > >>>> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from > > >>>> seeing them. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia > > >>> > > >>> Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the > > >> body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is > > >> too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a > > >> featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > You'd think so, but what's weird is that ALL of our light on Earth is the result of the reflection of our "little light". > > > > > > > So you're back to gibberish. > > > > Sylvia. > > No, what I'm trying to say is that there would be no life on Earth without the Sun. We are a product of the corona. The products of the Earth's reflection is invisible when compared to the overall corona of our star. Do we know its' magnitude? It is hard to separate the science when we fall within the limits of the sun's ability to illuminate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-26 15:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2a1c7Fqv97U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #390953 |
On 26/08/2016 12:36 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:34:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:30:59 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 26/08/2016 12:26 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> On 26/08/2016 11:56 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:52:33 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 9:10 AM, Carl Susumu wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Astronomers are viewing a single point in space (.1 arcseconds), using the Kepler space telescope but to view a planet 4.2 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescopes, would require a planet with a diameter of more than ten times the diameter of our solar system. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Stars (all of them, except the sun) have an angular size that is too >>>>>>> small to be resolved by the human eye. That doesn't prevent people from >>>>>>> seeing them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes it does. It means that we can only see the corona, not the actual body- and this is bound to have a major measurable effect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Comparatively little light comes from the corona. Most comes from the >>>>> body of the star. Light doesn't disappear just because the eye lens is >>>>> too small to resolve it as an image. It just gets concentrated into a >>>>> featureless dot, which is what the owner of the eye perceives. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> You'd think so, but what's weird is that ALL of our light on Earth is the result of the reflection of our "little light". >>>> >>> >>> So you're back to gibberish. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> No, what I'm trying to say is that there would be no life on Earth without the Sun. We are a product of the corona. The products of the Earth's reflection is invisible when compared to the overall corona of our star. Do we know its' magnitude? > > It is hard to separate the science when we fall within the limits of the sun's ability to illuminate. > It's easy. Just forget the metaphysical/philosophical nonsense, and concentrate on how to model measurable phenomena. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fb8051da-aee9-41d1-89fe-bbec87d1ae1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
Homolog, is the Kepler space telescope a telescope? Is NASA saying that planets have been discovered, 4.22 light years from the earth, using the Kepler space telescope? You sound like Clinton trying to resolve her Foundation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <99b65ddc-6cf8-49c8-ab61-8bee1dbffba7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
If I hear one more lame excuse, I will crash the market.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 13:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b6d35ec-1bc7-4000-9e7a-9dddf3458032@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
That's it. Do not say that I did not warn you.. Twin blackholes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Carl Susumu <numbernumber1212@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <156c1f28-d6e7-4685-9ed9-7a07acaf950d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #390933 |
No, actually a very obtuse observation, based on total lack of knowledge of how Kepler detected planets. Kepler was never intended to resolve planets. Rather, a certain small fraction of planets have orbits oriented such that the planet regularly transits its parent star as viewed from the Earth. By staring continuously at a patch of sky with 100,000 stars using photodetectors of extreme stability, Kepler detected the minute dips in luminosity caused by a planet transiting its parent star. A Jupiter-sized planet might cause a dip in luminosity on the order of a percent. A terrestrial planet might cause a dip in luminosity of 100 parts per million. Kepler transit curves have a highly characteristic shape. http://kepler.nasa.gov/images/aas2010-1wbLightCurves2-full.jpg A candidate planet's existence would be confirmed by detection of multiple, regularly spaced dips in luminosity. _________________________________________________________ Is NASA using the Kepler space telescope to observe planets 4.22 light years from the earth? You sound like Clinton trying to resolve her Foundation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web