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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #391737 > unrolled thread

Planets of Proxima Certauri

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

Contents

  Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-07 17:25 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 18:23 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 06:55 +0200
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 18:39 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2016-09-08 19:09 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-08 20:06 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-09 20:09 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 03:46 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-10 14:39 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-10 16:44 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-11 12:45 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-11 17:06 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 12:29 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 13:17 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 13:30 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-14 13:38 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-14 16:20 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-15 04:05 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-15 15:09 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-15 20:18 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 18:06 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-16 19:12 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 00:42 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 12:09 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-17 12:40 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 18:44 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-18 02:17 +0000
        Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 20:42 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 12:59 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-17 14:50 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-17 15:15 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:45 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 12:59 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 15:42 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 01:56 +0000
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 16:09 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 16:24 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:04 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:22 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 21:06 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:03 +0000
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:28 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-19 15:04 +0000
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-18 19:31 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 15:30 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-09-20 02:47 +0000
        Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-19 19:52 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 22:39 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-19 19:55 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 09:13 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-20 14:18 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-21 11:38 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-21 14:55 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri akashaheights@gmail.com - 2016-09-22 13:30 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-23 14:38 -0700
      Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-23 20:41 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-26 16:03 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-28 12:17 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-09-30 13:03 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-01 12:54 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-03 16:01 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:04 -0700
    Re: Planets of Proxima Certauri numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-09 11:41 -0700

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#392657

"In Rømer's day, a large number of accurately mapped reference stars were 
available that enabled accurate synchronization of pendulum clocks to sidereal 
time all year round." Homolog Sep 14 

____________________________________________________


Homolog has confirmed the stationary universe because the stationary universe can be used to synchronize a clock all year round.

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

#392665

Modern astronomers uses parallax to determine the distance to a star utilizing the change in the position of the star but the stellar universe is stationary. Example, on Feb 14 of the years 1930, 1959, 1975 and 1977, the celestial universe at 12:00 am is exactly the same. For any single day of any year, at the same time, the celestial universe is exactly the same  which is experimental proof the stellar universe is stationary and the distances of the stars have been fabricated, using parallax.

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

#392676

Sep 16 numbernu...@gmail.com wrote;

> Modern astronomers uses parallax to determine the distance to a star utilizing the change in the position of the star but the stellar universe is stationary. Example, on Feb 14 of the years 1930, 1959, 1975 and 1977, the celestial universe at 12:00 am is exactly the same. For any single day of any year, at the same time, the celestial universe is exactly the same  which is experimental proof the stellar universe is stationary and the distances of the stars have been fabricated, using parallax. 

You never heard of proper motion? Look it up and report back. 

You just don't know what you don't know. Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars. You just don't get it...

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

#392732

"Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal.

______________________________________________________


Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary.  In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

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

#392737

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 1:09:06 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
> >
> > "Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close
> > stars"--pnal.
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary.

Your absurd assertion is patent baloney since everyone (but you) knows
that stars are in motion.

> In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily
> motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar
> universe is stationary (planisphere).

In addition you prove yourself to be an abject moron and a blithering idiot.
Your grasp of reality is virtually nonexistent.

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

#392783

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 12:09:06 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal.
> 
> ______________________________________________________
> 
> 
> Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary.  In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the tellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

Your words indicate that you haven't a clue about what you speak. Not too smart to come to a relativity group and pretend that you are knowledgeable, although you are far from alone in this regard.

The *apparent* proper motion of relatively close stars against the much further away background stars over the course of 6 months is how parallax works. There isn't necessarily any actual motion at all, other than that of the Earth as it orbits the Sun.

Regarding the Bradley stellar aberration effect, your statement is a little bizarre, and again indicates that you are talking through your hat. Read this...

http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm

... and learn something new today.

You are living proof that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing".

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

#392784

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>"Parallax is not "Parallaxwhat you think it is, and only works for fairly 
close
>stars"--pnal.

>______________________________________________________


>Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is 
>stationary.

Why would you claim that?  All stars including the sun are moving relative 
to each other as they have their own paths through the galaxy and orbit
its center.

Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed".  Others are closer
and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars.  Look up
proper motion.  We can also detect redshift or blueshift in their
spectral lines.  There is one star (forget its name) that is dozens of
light years away but heading almost straight toward us, in many thousands
of years it will pass as close as a light year away from us.

>In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily
> motions

Congratulations. You just discovered Parallax.  If we plot the position
of a close star against the distant stars over the period of a year,
it will appear to move in a tiny ellipse.  This is caused by the earth's
orbital motion, not any motion of the star (however its proper motion
has to be dealt with separately). The size of the ellipse tells
us how close the star is, the further away it is the smaller the ellipse
until you consider the distant stars whose ellipse is too small to 
measure.

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

#392789

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 7:18:37 PM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:

> There is one star (forget its name) that is dozens of
> light years away but heading almost straight toward us, in many thousands
> of years it will pass as close as a light year away from us.

Here you go...

http://www.universetoday.com/117778/rogue-star-hip-85605-on-collision-course-with-our-solar-system-but-earthlings-need-not-worry/

... also, it has possibly happened before...

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/alien-star-missed-us-less-light-year-scientists-say-n307996

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

#392740

"Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal. 

______________________________________________________ 


Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar universe to determine the time for every single night of the year. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the measurement of the star is a diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere). 

 

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

#392755

On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 1:59:11 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> "Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal. 
> 
> ______________________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary
> since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in
> motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar
> universe to determine the time for every single night of the year. The
> stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away
> it cannot be determine; henceforth, the measurement of the star is a
> diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the
> earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration
> effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere).

Still taking your stupid pills, I see.

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

#392759

"Parallax is not what you think it is, and only works for fairly close stars"--pnal. 

______________________________________________________ 


Your statement is patently incorrect since the stellar universe is stationary since a planisphere would not function if the stellar universe were in motion. The stellar is so stationary that one can use the stationary stellar universe to determine the time for every single night of the year. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the measurement of the star is a diametrical fabrication. In addition, the proper motion is cause by the earth's yearly and daily motions similar to the Bradley stellar aberration effect since the stellar universe is stationary (planisphere). 

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

#392847

"There isn't necessarily any actual motion at all, other than that of the Earth as it orbits the Sun."---AL

__________________________________________________



Very good Al!

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

#392848

"Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed".  Others are closer 
and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars." Moroney

____________________________________________________________________________



My complete apologies but the stellar universe is stationary which is why a planisphere works so well.  If the stellar universe was in motion the closest stars would moved at a different rate than the farthest stars and the planisphere would not function. I well like my phanisphere yet I yet to accurately use it. So I am not completely sure it works.  I fact it my not work and your theory that the stellar universe is in motion may in fact be valid.  I am waiting for the full moon to past and then will initiate my phanispere experiment to verify my stationary universe theory. My deepest regrets that I am contradicting your dearest and beloved theoretical stories. It makes me really sad to think that I have taken away or trying to taken away something that is associated with the years of your life. When my dog die I was also extremely heart broken and cried since I love her very much; henceforth, I apology for making you feel defensive and I completely understand your attitude. LOVE ben

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

#392857

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 12:59:10 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed".  Others are closer 
> and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars." Moroney
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> My complete apologies but the stellar universe is stationary which is why a planisphere works so well.  If the stellar universe was in motion the closest stars would moved at a different rate than the farthest stars and the planisphere would not function. I well like my phanisphere yet I yet to accurately use it. So I am not completely sure it works.  I fact it my not work and your theory that the stellar universe is in motion may in fact be valid...

It is clear that you really don't understand stellar parallax. Go here...

http://tinyurl.com/zofb8vx

... and watch as many of these videos as it takes for you to understand.

You cannot just go out to a dark moonless sky and ever expect to see these tiny apparent motions, they are absolutely minuscule, and not even worth talking about when discussing visual astronomy. You need very accurate measuring devices and advanced optical systems to measure parallax.

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

#392884

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>"Many stars are so far from us that they appear "fixed".  Others are closer
>and we can detect them moving relative to the distant stars." Moroney

>____________________________________________________________________________



>My complete apologies but the stellar universe is stationary which is 
>why a planisphere works so well.  If the stellar universe was in motion 
>the closest stars would moved at a different rate than the farthest stars 
>and the planisphere would not function.

Better start saving your pennies now because in a few thousand years, your
beloved planisphere will become obsolete and you'll have to buy a new one.
Don't get too familiar with the constellations as well, because in tens of 
thousands of years, they will be unrecognizable because of the proper
motion of all the stars with respect to us.

And the closest stars do move at a different rate than the farthest stars,
which is how we even know they are the closest stars.

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

#392863

"You cannot just go out to a dark moonless sky and ever expect to see these tiny apparent motions, they are absolutely minuscule, and not even worth talking about when discussing visual astronomy. You need very accurate measuring devices and advanced optical systems to measure parallax."---pnal.

_____________________________________________________________________



Completely untrue, if the stellar universe was in motion the planisphere would not function. You're motions are formed by the earth daily and yearly motions.

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

#392865

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 4:09:59 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> "You cannot just go out to a dark moonless sky and ever expect to see these tiny apparent motions, they are absolutely minuscule, and not even worth talking about when discussing visual astronomy. You need very accurate measuring devices and advanced optical systems to measure parallax."---pnal.
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> Completely untrue, if the stellar universe was in motion the planisphere would not function. You're motions are formed by the earth daily and yearly motions.

Huh? Wherever did you get the idea that I said the 'stellar universe' was in motion? It is, of course, but only over very large time scales...

I'm talking, naturally, about the apparent motions caused by parallax! It is completely true that you cannot possibly see those motions naked-eye. You cannot detect them through your telescope. They are TINY, less than the apparent diameter of a star, and even then it takes a full 6 months to detect.

I think that perhaps your English comprehension is causing you problems here...

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

#392886

And the closest stars do move at a different rate than the farthest stars, 
which is how we even know they are the closest stars.

__________________________________________________________________


Explain the planisphere. You cannot tell if a star is far away or just plain dim. I must be true that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks.  How old are you anyways??

 












 

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

#392889

The red and blue shifts prove the stellar universe is stationary since at different times and positions, every star in the celestial universe forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary. 

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

#392900

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 7:22:26 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:

> The red and blue shifts prove the stellar universe is stationary since at different times and positions, every star in the celestial universe forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary.

Forget about red and blue shifts, they are essentially meaningless when applied to stars in our galaxy. They are important ONLY for galaxies external to our own.

Your planisphere is fine and will serve you well for hundreds of years. Even Barnard's Star, the star with the highest proper motion known, assuming that it is shown at all on your planisphere, will be correct, as far as you are concerned. The motions of stars in our galaxy will be completely unobservable to you over your lifetime. No worries.

We see stars in our sky because either they are very bright or they are very close, or, in some cases, like Sirius or Vega (and others), both.

I think you are not understanding the word 'stationary"...

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

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web