Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #665778 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700 |
| Last post | 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 106 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-04 16:26 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 08:16 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-05 11:05 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-05 09:41 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 23:39 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 14:31 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-06 10:39 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:26 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 08:37 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-09 08:35 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:38 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 07:51 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 05:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 08:33 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:45 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-14 10:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 20:21 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-15 08:38 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 21:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:26 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 20:07 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 20:20 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:01 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:49 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 14:13 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:55 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 17:16 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 17:28 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 18:35 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 11:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:23 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-10 10:40 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 20:57 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 21:25 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 08:07 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 12:54 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 12:58 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 14:27 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 14:31 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 14:06 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 14:08 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:31 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 20:01 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 21:01 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 09:05 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 21:37 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 20:30 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:34 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 07:44 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 10:36 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 10:35 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 13:16 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 11:13 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 12:14 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 21:10 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 22:56 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 12:04 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:09 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 13:37 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:33 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-16 11:42 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:35 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Dwan Szczepanski <aan@ezz.pl> - 2025-09-17 10:56 +0000
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 18:10 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:34 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:24 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 11:14 +0200
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 09:53 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:34 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:37 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-08 09:53 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 12:10 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 12:20 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 12:59 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 13:33 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:16 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:26 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 13:18 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 10:01 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-11 14:19 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 22:29 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:25 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 12:05 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 13:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 13:55 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 15:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 15:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 22:31 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:56 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 00:40 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 12:54 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:24 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:48 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 10:04 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-16 15:11 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:27 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 10:06 -0700
Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 12:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ivRxQ.2$1j05.1@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #666064 |
Den 14.09.2025 22:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak: > On 9/14/2025 9:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> But this experiment is performed in the real world, >> See: >> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf >> >> It is really two experiments: >> >> Experiment 1: >> Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground. >> Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on >> an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction. >> When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. >> Result: >> Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A- >> >> Experiment 2: >> Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground. >> Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on >> an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction. >> When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. >> Result: >> Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A- >> > Sure, sure, planets are moving, very much > evidence for that, so we should agree that > angels pushing them are confirmed very > strongly. This comment of yours makes it clear that you have read and understood Hafele and Keating's paper. Well done! >> Maciej, now you can demonstrate how smart you are by calling >> Hafele and Keating "brainwashed religious maniacs". Did you forget this, Maciej? Or have you now, when you have read their paper, realised that Hafele and Keating are very good experimental physicists and not "brainwashed religious maniacs"? ------- BTW, Maciej: It is invisible blue fairies, not angels, that are pushing the planets along. Did you really not know that? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 16:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <186579fd9e77f472$272943$2996671$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #666071 |
On 9/15/2025 12:04 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 14.09.2025 22:56, skrev Maciej Woźniak: >> On 9/14/2025 9:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>> But this experiment is performed in the real world, >>> See: >>> https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf >>> >>> It is really two experiments: >>> >>> Experiment 1: >>> Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground. >>> Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on >>> an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction. >>> When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. >>> Result: >>> Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A- >>> >>> Experiment 2: >>> Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground. >>> Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on >>> an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction. >>> When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared. >>> Result: >>> Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A- >>> > >> Sure, sure, planets are moving, very much >> evidence for that, so we should agree that >> angels pushing them are confirmed very >> strongly. > > This comment of yours makes it clear that you have > read and understood Hafele and Keating's paper. This comment of mine makes it clear that I know how the "logic" of an idiot physicist works. > BTW, Maciej: > It is invisible blue fairies, not angels, that are pushing > the planets along. Did you really not know that? This comment of yours makes it clear that you have never read and understood the theory of pushing angels.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-15 13:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ripcrc.i0s67s1dqiqfyN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #666008 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > > Den 12.09.2025 08:07, skrev Thomas Heger: > >> Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > >>> Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>> Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen: > >>>>> Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do > >>>>>> not belong to the same time. > >>>>> > >>>>> Consider a star 10000 light years away. > >>>>> > >>>>> Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"? > >>>> > >>>> No! > >>> > >>> But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away. > >> > >> You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!! > >> > > > > You snipped everything I wrote and repeat what you have said before. > > > > Please address the following: > > =============================== > > Consider a star 10000 light years away. > > The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties > > of the star 10000 years ago: > > its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star, > > or a star approaching the end of its life- > > If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan > > will be ~ 100 million years. > > If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun, > > its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years. > > If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan > > will be ~ 70 billion years. > > > > The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star > > 10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is > > a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be > > known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position > > will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where > > the star is now. > > > > We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago. > > > > Thomas Heger wrote: > > | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and > > | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as > > | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago. > > | That is a HUGE difference. > > | > > | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while > > | the universe isn't. > > | > > | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do > > | not belong to the same time. > > > > We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was > > a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real > > main sequence star now. > > > > It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years > > ago is not real now. > > > > What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are? > > Mirages? > > > > We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years > > from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star > > and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. > > Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with > millions of light-years. > > well, now we have a 'little' problem: > > if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression > of the stars 'real'. > > It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today. > > sure, the picture and the content were once real. > > But the sender might already be dead. > > > > > And for million years the two stars have transferred energy > > (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million > > of years. > > > The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate > in cosmology. > > Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the > universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an > error in the positions. > > We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a > star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a > relatively close position. > > And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could > actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is > actually nearer to us. > > So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which > were never that close. > > > The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years > > from each other. > > That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. > > > That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them > > "belong to separate times." > > > > They are both living at the same time. > 'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars. > > I meant: > > if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand > light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events > belong to a different time than foreground events. > > The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years. > > Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not > belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays. > > Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know, > which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to > the foreground. > > We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to > estimate the distances. > > But those theories are most likely wrong.TH You really are decades behind the times. (and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong) FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions, and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax) of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent, all the way out to the galactic centre. Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)> We do know the delays you worry about, and we do know which stars are near, and which are far away. We also know which stars are really double, and which are aligned by coincidence. We have an accurate 3D map of the galaxy, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 08:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <misee9F1nfkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #666073 |
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder: ... >>> | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and >>> | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as >>> | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago. >>> | That is a HUGE difference. >>> | >>> | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while >>> | the universe isn't. >>> | >>> | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do >>> | not belong to the same time. >>> >>> We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was >>> a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real >>> main sequence star now. >>> >>> It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years >>> ago is not real now. >>> >>> What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are? >>> Mirages? >>> >>> We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years >>> from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star >>> and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. >> >> Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with >> millions of light-years. >> >> well, now we have a 'little' problem: >> >> if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression >> of the stars 'real'. >> >> It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today. >> >> sure, the picture and the content were once real. >> >> But the sender might already be dead. >> >> >> >>> And for million years the two stars have transferred energy >>> (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million >>> of years. >> >> >> The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate >> in cosmology. >> >> Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the >> universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an >> error in the positions. >> >> We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a >> star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a >> relatively close position. >> >> And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could >> actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is >> actually nearer to us. >> >> So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which >> were never that close. >> >>> The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years >>> from each other. >> >> That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. >> >>> That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them >>> "belong to separate times." >>> >>> They are both living at the same time. >> 'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars. >> >> I meant: >> >> if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand >> light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events >> belong to a different time than foreground events. >> >> The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years. >> >> Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays. >> >> Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know, >> which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to >> the foreground. >> >> We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to >> estimate the distances. >> >> But those theories are most likely wrong.TH > > You really are decades behind the times. > (and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong) > > FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions, > and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax) > of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent, > all the way out to the galactic centre. > Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA > mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)> If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times. The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million years, within which the stars had moved. But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up, down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable (with red- or blueshift). To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable. So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how fast. This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to move and we don't know the direction. Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is millions of light years away. > We do know the delays you worry about, > and we do know which stars are near, > and which are far away. > We also know which stars are really double, > and which are aligned by coincidence. All we see is actually a picture. This picture was sent towards our position long ago and the longer ago the further away. Since everything moves, we had to correct the delay somehow, but can't do that, because we cannot even know the correct distance. What we could know in principle, even if that is heard to measure, that is the direction ond the velocity of the movements of stars. To bring all stars into the same 'time-sheet' we would need to measure their individual path and calculate their position, where they were in the considered time. That is actually quite difficult and certainly annoying. That's why I assume this had never been done. > We have an accurate 3D map of the galaxy, Well, I have doubts about that. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 11:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1riqymp.7eqxn517kkbrpN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #666104 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder: > ... > >>> | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and > >>> | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as > >>> | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago. > >>> | That is a HUGE difference. > >>> | > >>> | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while > >>> | the universe isn't. > >>> | > >>> | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do > >>> | not belong to the same time. > >>> > >>> We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was > >>> a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real > >>> main sequence star now. > >>> > >>> It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years > >>> ago is not real now. > >>> > >>> What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are? > >>> Mirages? > >>> > >>> We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years > >>> from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star > >>> and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. > >> > >> Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with > >> millions of light-years. > >> > >> well, now we have a 'little' problem: > >> > >> if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression > >> of the stars 'real'. > >> > >> It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today. > >> > >> sure, the picture and the content were once real. > >> > >> But the sender might already be dead. > >> > >> > >> > >>> And for million years the two stars have transferred energy > >>> (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million > >>> of years. > >> > >> > >> The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate > >> in cosmology. > >> > >> Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the > >> universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an > >> error in the positions. > >> > >> We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a > >> star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a > >> relatively close position. > >> > >> And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could > >> actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is > >> actually nearer to us. > >> > >> So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which > >> were never that close. > >> > >>> The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years > >>> from each other. > >> > >> That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. > >> > >>> That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them > >>> "belong to separate times." > >>> > >>> They are both living at the same time. > >> 'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars. > >> > >> I meant: > >> > >> if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand > >> light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events > >> belong to a different time than foreground events. > >> > >> The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years. > >> > >> Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not > >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays. > >> > >> Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know, > >> which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to > >> the foreground. > >> > >> We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to > >> estimate the distances. > >> > >> But those theories are most likely wrong.TH > > > > You really are decades behind the times. > > (and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong) > > > > FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions, > > and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax) > > of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent, > > all the way out to the galactic centre. > > Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA > > mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)> > > > > If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars > in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times. > > The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million > years, within which the stars had moved. FYI, the galaxy is 'only' 100 000 lightyears across. > But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up, > down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable > (with red- or blueshift). See, you are ages behind the times, and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you > would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that > would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable. See, you are ages behind the times, and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how > fast. See, you are ages behind the times, and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current > distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to > move and we don't know the direction. > > Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all > telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for > geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is > millions of light years away. See, you are ages behind the times, and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. Why don't you learn something about reality before you start making stupid comments on it? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-16 09:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v34jcktq8u68dn3tf6dg6d3pfj9714rlv0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #666109 |
On Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:42:23 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote: >Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > >> Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder: >> ... >> >>> | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and >> >>> | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as >> >>> | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago. >> >>> | That is a HUGE difference. >> >>> | >> >>> | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while >> >>> | the universe isn't. >> >>> | >> >>> | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do >> >>> | not belong to the same time. >> >>> >> >>> We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was >> >>> a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real >> >>> main sequence star now. >> >>> >> >>> It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years >> >>> ago is not real now. >> >>> >> >>> What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are? >> >>> Mirages? >> >>> >> >>> We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years >> >>> from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star >> >>> and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other. >> >> >> >> Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with >> >> millions of light-years. >> >> >> >> well, now we have a 'little' problem: >> >> >> >> if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression >> >> of the stars 'real'. >> >> >> >> It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today. >> >> >> >> sure, the picture and the content were once real. >> >> >> >> But the sender might already be dead. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> And for million years the two stars have transferred energy >> >>> (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million >> >>> of years. >> >> >> >> >> >> The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate >> >> in cosmology. >> >> >> >> Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the >> >> universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an >> >> error in the positions. >> >> >> >> We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a >> >> star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a >> >> relatively close position. >> >> >> >> And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could >> >> actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is >> >> actually nearer to us. >> >> >> >> So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which >> >> were never that close. >> >> >> >>> The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years >> >>> from each other. >> >> >> >> That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. >> >> >> >>> That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them >> >>> "belong to separate times." >> >>> >> >>> They are both living at the same time. >> >> 'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars. >> >> >> >> I meant: >> >> >> >> if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand >> >> light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events >> >> belong to a different time than foreground events. >> >> >> >> The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years. >> >> >> >> Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not >> >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays. >> >> >> >> Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know, >> >> which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to >> >> the foreground. >> >> >> >> We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to >> >> estimate the distances. >> >> >> >> But those theories are most likely wrong.TH >> > >> > You really are decades behind the times. >> > (and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong) >> > >> > FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions, >> > and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax) >> > of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent, >> > all the way out to the galactic centre. >> > Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA >> > mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. >> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)> >> >> >> >> If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars >> in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times. >> >> The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million >> years, within which the stars had moved. > >FYI, the galaxy is 'only' 100 000 lightyears across. > >> But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up, >> down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable >> (with red- or blueshift). > >See, you are ages behind the times, >and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > >> To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you >> would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that >> would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable. > >See, you are ages behind the times, >and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > >> So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how >> fast. > >See, you are ages behind the times, >and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > >> This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current >> distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to >> move and we don't know the direction. >> >> Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all >> telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for >> geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is >> millions of light years away. > >See, you are ages behind the times, >and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > >Why don't you learn something about reality >before you start making stupid comments on it? > >Jan > Put a kitchen knife in your wife's hand and tell her... See, you are ages behind the times, and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. Why don't you learn something about reality before you start MAKING STUPID COMMENTS ON IT, BITCH!!!! send us the video.... -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dwan Szczepanski <aan@ezz.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-17 10:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ae45n$35tl8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #666109 |
J. J. Lodder wrote: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all >> telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for >> geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star >> is millions of light years away. > > See, you are ages behind the times, > and completely out of touch with reality as it is today. > > Why don't you learn something about reality before you start making > stupid comments on it? pardonne moise, you are talking about my 𝙊𝙣_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝘿𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙩_𝙈𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧_𝙤𝙛_𝙩𝙝𝙚_𝙈𝙤𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜_𝙆𝙤𝙚𝙧𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙨_𝙈𝙤𝙙𝙚𝙡 whereas the 'reality' is completely irrelevant. All you need is the probability distribution of the quantum domain. That's the 'reality', like it or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 18:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ri93k0.123cf7yu429a7N%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #665792 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: > > On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker > >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > >> > >>> What came first the stars or the earth? > >>> > >>> > >>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. > >> > >> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. > >> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. > >> > >> The most simpliest level.. > >> > >> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." > >> > >> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. > > > > Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? > > > The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. > > Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a > region, where today there is the asteroid belt. > > That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some > comets consist of water. > > But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. > > We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava > contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. How confused can you be? Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 13:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109i5j5$37ufu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665792 |
On 9/6/2025 1:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote: > Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson: >> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>> >>>> >>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>> >>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>> >>> The most simpliest level.. >>> >>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>> >>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >> >> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? > > > The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. > > Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a > region, where today there is the asteroid belt. > > That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some > comets consist of water. > > But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies. > > We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava > contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. Let say Earth had its _own_ water. Then a comet with frozen ice that contains a special brew, slammed into the very early ocean during a storm and got zapped with lightning? Life?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 10:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mi4u59F2lhaU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #665808 |
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 22:29 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
> On 9/6/2025 1:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
>>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What came first the stars or the earth?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
>>>>
>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels..
>>>>
>>>> The most simpliest level..
>>>>
>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
>>>>
>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
>>>
>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
>>
>>
>> The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
>>
>> Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in
>> a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
>>
>> That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
>> comets consist of water.
>>
>> But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
>>
>> We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
>
> Let say Earth had its _own_ water. Then a comet with frozen ice that
> contains a special brew, slammed into the very early ocean during a
> storm and got zapped with lightning? Life?
>
I personally think, that 'Growing Earth' is true.
This (old) theory means: the mass of the Earth is slowly increasing,
because inside the planet new matter is created out of nothing.
This new matters comes in all sorts and sizes. And among this, we find
also water and CO2.
These gases are initially part of the matter with higher density
('magma') and are dissolved in it.
Once magma pops out of volcanoes, the gases are freed and gather in the
atmosphere.
Water drops down in form of rain and CO2 mainly stayed in the air for
quite a while.
After enough liquid water appeared upon the surface, the CO2 became
dissolved in water, too, and eventually triggered the creation of life
in water.
TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 14:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <oUzvQ.41060$JfAf.33655@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #665792 |
Den 06.09.2025 10:39, skrev Thomas Heger: > > Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a > region, where today there is the asteroid belt. > This is wrong because no comet has aphelion in the asteroid belt. Their aphelia are in the Kuiper belt or in the Oort Cloud. There are asteroids with high eccentricity with aphelia in the asteroid belt, but they are not called comets. Can you guess why? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 11:14 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1ri8i9t.c3968mdxm7gaN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #665790 |
Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker > > <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > >> What came first the stars or the earth? > >> > >> > >> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. > > > > All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. > > any my evidence comes from all different levels.. > > > > The most simpliest level.. > > > > it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." > > > > but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. > > Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? Before ignition the dust cloud was cold, so there was also water in the inner regions, Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lmpobk5im9osopvlhv4ir3dkfpd8r6jlnd@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #665790 |
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> >>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>> >>> >>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >> >> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >> >> The most simpliest level.. >> >> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >> >> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. > >Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? Panspermia? > >> >> >> So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first... >> and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was >> our Sun. >> >> >> >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 13:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109i5si$37ufu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665796 |
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" > <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>> >>>> >>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>> >>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>> >>> The most simpliest level.. >>> >>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>> >>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >> >> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? > > Panspermia? It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. > > > >> >>> >>> >>> So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first... >>> and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was >>> our Sun. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-06 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7chpbklidtqg2i2k0cq8j2ccmmt1tmuabr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #665809 |
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>> >>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>> >>>> The most simpliest level.. >>>> >>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>> >>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>> >>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >> >> Panspermia? > >It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-07 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109ksec$3u0bu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665815 |
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" > <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>> >>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>> >>>>> The most simpliest level.. >>>>> >>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>> >>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>> >>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>> >>> Panspermia? >> >> It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. > > > you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 09:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <et1ubk5pnruddl5tguc24dabmj2cupvdmj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #665834 |
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>> >>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>> >>>>>> The most simpliest level.. >>>>>> >>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>> >>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>> >>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>> >>>> Panspermia? >>> >>> It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >> >> >> you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... > >This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >something, seems rather "natural"? ;^) I don't understand what you are getting at.. Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too highly engineered???? Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it means?? "...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by intelligent beings." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-08 12:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109n9n0$g2ku$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665847 |
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" > <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The most simpliest level.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>> >>>>> Panspermia? >>>> >>>> It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>> >>> >>> you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >> >> This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^) > > I don't understand what you are getting at.. > > Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too > highly engineered???? > > Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or > a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? > > I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it > means?? Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style? > > "...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by > intelligent beings." > https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia > > > It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 12:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccv0cktb7s10os8of406609jpvv91mn3en@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #665852 |
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The most simpliest level.. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>> >>>>>> Panspermia? >>>>> >>>>> It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>> >>>> >>>> you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>> >>> This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^) >> >> I don't understand what you are getting at.. >> >> Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >> highly engineered???? >> >> Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >> >> I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >> means?? > >Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style? i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia... > > >> >> "...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by >> intelligent beings." >> https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia >> >> >> It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering. >> >> >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-09 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <109q0u6$16uj2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #665884 |
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" > <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The most simpliest level.. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Panspermia? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>> >>>> This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^) >>> >>> I don't understand what you are getting at.. >>> >>> Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>> highly engineered???? >>> >>> Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >>> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>> >>> I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>> means?? >> >> Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >> aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style? > > i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up > with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia... They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know. > > > >> >> >>> >>> "...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by >>> intelligent beings." >>> https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia >>> >>> >>> It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering. >>> >>> >>>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web