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

#392955

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>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. 

It seems rather obvious you don't know what red and blue shifts even are.
A stationary star would show neither a red nor a blue shift.  That some
stars show a blue shift shows they are approaching us, ones with a red
shift are receding from us.  In addition, there is proper motion where
the "sideways" motion of the stars can be seen.

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

#392890

That not true because even if the stellar universe was in motion both the red and blue shift would occur.

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

#392956

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

>That not true because even if the stellar universe was in motion both
>the red and blue shift would occur.

Which is exactly what is observed. Some stars have a red shift, others
have a blue shift. Thanks for proving my point.

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

#392891

The Lunar lander experiment, the expansion theory based on only the red shift and Huygens measurement of the velocity of light, the ether, composed of matter. Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light is based on induction that is not luminous. Poynting wire is not luminous. I can think a all sort of sort of shit and you guys see none of it.  I cannot believe how stupid you people are.

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

#393007

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. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a 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]

#393036

numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:

<snip crap>

Repeating the same falsehoods over and over again doesn't make them true.

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

#393038

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 8:48:41 PM UTC-6, Michael Moroney wrote:
> numbernumber1964@gmail.com writes:
> 
> <snip crap>
> 
> Repeating the same falsehoods over and over again doesn't make them true.

He is a stupid, ignorant, foolish, abusive troll.  He could e doing
something important with his life but he chooses to be an ignoramus.

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

#393053

On Monday, September 19, 2016 at 3:30:28 PM UTC-7, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a 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).

You appear to have the brains of a mud fence...

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

#393040

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. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a 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]

#393111

Certaintly it may be true but your statement regarding a stellar universe that is in motion 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. The stellar may or it may not be in motion but since the stars are so far away it cannot be determine; henceforth, the ostensible measurement of the distance to a 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]

#393145

"History shows us examples of scientists who were able to make a great leap forward specifically because they were not limited by the data. One of the most dramatic examples occurs at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when we may find a scientist willing to ignore the limitations of numerical facts for the sake of correct idea or theory, even to the extent of saying that certain numbers probably should be made a little bit bigger, others a little smaller, and so on. It was precisely in this way that Dalton proceeded in developing his atomic theory. Some scientists do not like examples of this sort, because they imply a special virtue "fudging" the evidence or "cooking" the data, and they warn us that we must not ever tell our science students that discoveries have been made in this way." (Suppe, p. 300).

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

#393244

What if comparatively the stellar universe was stationary? It would similar to Harvard's sugar fraud. How many peoples lives did Harvard destroy?

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

#393260

On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:38:28 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> What if comparatively the stellar universe was stationary?

It's not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_1061

"The star was first cataloged in 1919 by German astronomer Max Wolf when he
published a list of dim stars that had high proper motions."

Of course, an ignoramus like you has no clue as to what "proper motion" means.

> It would similar to Harvard's sugar fraud. How many peoples lives did
> Harvard destroy?

Irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

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

#393398

"Like many red dwarfs, it most likely has a long rotation period of more than 100 days, although it is difficult to measure accurately."
___________________________

More like impossible to measure accurately.

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

#393536

Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

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

#393563

On Friday, September 23, 2016 at 3:38:45 PM UTC-6, numbernu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the
> star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409)
> but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based
> telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon.

You really don't have a clue, ignoramus.

> For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon
> would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters;

Irrelevant.

> consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet
> 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter
> equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently,
> the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves
> between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the
> existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima
> Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

Nope.  It proves that you are stupider than dirt.

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

#393928

But Michelson experiment is negative right?

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

#394152

Sorry, on vacation...using Robo insertion program X2j.

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

#394432

Chilean astronomers state that a planet has been discovered orbiting the star Proxima Centauri using a land based telescope (Escude, p. 408–409) but the Hubble space telescope that is more powerful than any land based telescope cannot view the lunar lander that is on the surface of the moon. For the Hubble telescope to view an object on the surface of the moon would require an object with a diameter of 200 meters; consequently, using a proportionality, for the Hubble to view a planet 4.22 light years from the earth would require a planet with a diameter equal to ten times the orbital diameter of our solar system; consequently, the Chilean astronomers use the dimming that occurs when the planet moves between the star Proxima Centauri and the telescope to justify the existence of a distance planet but...............which proves the Proxima Centauri planet observation is a hoax.

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

#394518

love, peace and hair hippie chicks

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

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

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

csiph-web