Path: csiph.com!au2pb.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.earthlink.com!news.earthlink.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:24:49 -0600
Message-ID: <5655FCEE.7480@ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:24:46 -0800
From: The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com>
Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: =?windows-1252?Q?=91Based_On_Nonsense=92?=
References: <564F6B1C.6890@ix.netcom.com> <564F6DC6.127E@ix.netcom.com> <56511756.777C@ix.netcom.com> <XOc4y.155775$sK.94170@fx14.iad> <56516A8D.4546@ix.netcom.com> <56523500$0$24145$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> <56523F0E.16A6@ix.netcom.com> <5652A612.4CB5@ix.netcom.com> <gld95btoqv6pqqso2vqis4sj5in5i3i0c5@4ax.com> <5655504A.7BF7@ix.netcom.com> <dbl3g0F9b7rU1@mid.individual.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 61
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 45.49.183.72
X-Trace: sv3-nuj+99ulz2RfbKnFaokjPjUY5sNKbC6MDvUHvwfTTKPW9THgv4PZoHhoFPF4Ij9FFkSj0FLArm6RFbU!0kdSfcBtdMaM9g3FetMYvZYlAFx60lQIqs0xYP0KsJSKWhKYrIsgcHY6hlXRcs/71HZxBtwmR/rD!j7i04AmX
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2877
Xref: csiph.com alt.astronomy:279438 sci.physics:535409 sci.physics.relativity:370892

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 25.11.2015 07:08, schrieb The Starmaker:
> > Saul Levy, a poster from the astronomy newsgroup got the answer wrong.
> >
> > I have to repeat the question:
> >
> >
> > The Earth-size is 3,959 mi radius.
> >
> > if I mutiply that number by 2,
> >
> > 2 x 3,959 mi radius = 7,918 mi "radius"
> >
> >
> > The question now is: Is 7,918 mi radius Earth-size? Yes or No??
> >
> >
> 
> You don't want to ask seriously if 3959 equals 7918 ?
> 
> Answer: no.
> 
> But if you want to create classes of celestial bodies, it might be a
> possibility to classify all planets from  -say- 5000 to 10000 km radius
> into one class (called: 'Earth-sized' - for example).
> 
> This 'Earth-sized' is in fact not true for many members of such a
> category. But this is not a requirement for grouping things into classes.
> 
> I would also suggest, not to use such 'imperial units' anymore (in
> connection with physics), since they fell out of fashion in almost any
> country on this planet.
> 
> TH


It is very simple..
if you're searching for
Life on other planets..
for another Earth..
you simply take a
precise number
and use that number
to find another Earth.

That number would be
a planet with the exact
raduis of the Earth, and
having the same distance from the Sun.


92.96 million mi by is 3,959 mi.


You find those precise numbers
anywhere else in the universe...
you got another Earth.


The Starmaker