Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #534240 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-20 10:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-10 19:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 119 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Based On Nonsense The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 10:49 -0800
Re: Based On Nonsense The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-20 11:00 -0800
Re: Based On Nonsense The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 17:16 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 00:57 -0500
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-21 22:17 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 01:30 -0500
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:18 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' "Alex Sutter" <invalid@troll-lo-lo.com> - 2015-11-22 08:36 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:48 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 09:17 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:31 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:26 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Puppet_Sock <puppet_sock@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-24 12:43 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-24 16:28 -0600
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 15:25 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 23:49 -0500
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-24 16:27 -0600
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-21 23:11 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 09:30 +0100
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 00:41 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 08:40 -0500
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 07:45 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 13:00 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 07:10 +0100
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-11-26 09:01 -0600
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-11-22 22:32 +0100
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 14:17 -0800
Re: Based On Nonsense The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-22 21:37 -0800
Re: Based On Nonsense The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-24 22:08 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 22:20 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 07:40 +0100
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 10:24 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 18:32 +0000
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-25 12:01 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 04:48 +0100
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-26 14:21 +0000
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-27 08:05 +0100
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-11-23 11:02 -0600
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-23 11:38 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 20:44 +0000
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 19:57 -0800
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 23:40 -0500
Re: The great unwashed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-23 21:46 -0800
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-23 22:23 -0800
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-11-24 08:31 -0500
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. "W.T.S. = Golden_Truth_Golden_Light!!!" <m14m@earthlink.net> - 2015-11-24 06:00 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-24 06:49 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Slimer <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-11-24 08:57 -0500
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-24 10:10 -0800
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 11:14 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:59 -0500
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 14:48 -0500
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 13:03 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2015-11-24 08:16 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. "Alex W." <ingilt@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-11-24 15:54 +0100
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:43 -0500
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 14:50 -0500
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 13:02 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-11-24 14:04 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 13:08 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-11-24 18:05 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 17:15 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Christopher A. Lee <c.lee@fairpoint.net> - 2015-11-24 13:56 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Mitchell Holman <noemail@comcast.net> - 2015-11-24 14:32 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-24 14:44 -0600
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 12:55 -0800
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-11-24 14:10 -0700
Re: Only 14% of Americans believe in GodlessEvolution. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:22 -0500
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 06:08 -0800
Re: The great unwashed. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 13:21 -0500
Re: The great unwashed. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-24 11:35 -0800
Re: The great unwashed. snipe@spambin.fsnet.co.uk (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2015-11-24 19:56 +0000
Ben Jacoby should play poker. Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> - 2015-11-26 06:02 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 11:42 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 12:48 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 13:17 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-26 10:41 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 13:48 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-26 20:32 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 23:52 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-26 20:29 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 00:14 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-26 10:39 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 13:46 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 00:10 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-26 12:36 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 12:49 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-26 10:43 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 13:51 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-26 20:34 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2015-11-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-26 20:58 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-26 20:23 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. buZZard <buzz@nospam.invalid> - 2015-11-26 23:30 -0500
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2015-11-26 20:23 -0800
Re: Ben Jacoby should play poker. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 00:15 -0500
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-27 11:14 -0800
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 12:00 -0800
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 16:53 -0800
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-11-27 19:15 -0800
Re: We're robots, programmed to get food, water, air, etc. Hägar <hsahm@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 08:43 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-11-26 08:26 -0500
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-09 10:34 +0000
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 03:18 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-12-09 08:31 -0600
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 07:51 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 16:41 -0500
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-10 16:28 +0000
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-10 16:01 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' "Alfred Summers" <invalid@eyample.com> - 2015-12-10 17:55 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 03:23 +0000
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 07:23 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-12-11 22:33 +0000
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2015-12-11 15:41 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-12-10 22:10 -0800
Re: 'Based On Nonsense' pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-12-10 23:24 -0800
Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2015-12-10 19:29 +0000
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | benj <none@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 08:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <GBj4y.85404$og6.82767@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #534521 |
On 11/22/2015 03:41 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 22.11.2015 08:11, schrieb The Starmaker:
>>
>>>>>> 1.
>>>>>> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Earth-size planet
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
>>>>
>>>> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
>>>> see)? People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
>>>> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
>>>> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
>>>> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
>>>> ignorant?
>>>
>>> Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
>>> system are Earth-size planets?
>>
>> Depends on what you regard as 'Earth-size'.
>>
>> At least the Earth has this size.
>>
>> But roughly Mars and Venus are 'Earth-sized'.
>>
>> But - in a way - all the 'stony' planets are similar in size, while
>> gas-planets are much larger.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> How about Pluto?
>
Not a planet. Next question.
--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 07:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: 'Based On Nonsense' |
| Message-ID | <fecf2191-30a3-49cb-95cb-3f015488e863@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #534531 |
Larger planets have the Gravity to hold onto gas. They aren't "all gas". This be like, "The Universe is expanding!! It's going to do that FOREVER!!" Or, "The temperature is rising!! It's going to do that FOREVER!!" At least, with the temperature, we can access evidence to show that, in the past, it has gone up and down cyclically forever. I'm confident that, in other reaches of the Universe, it is not expanding, and that expansions and contractions happen cyclically, as well. Big Bang!! Shee-it!! I mean. What SHIT!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 13:00 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <56522CE8.AFC@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #534531 |
benj wrote: > > On 11/22/2015 03:41 AM, The Starmaker wrote: > > Thomas Heger wrote: > >> > >> Am 22.11.2015 08:11, schrieb The Starmaker: > >> > >>>>>> 1. > >>>>>> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1) Earth-size planet > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it, > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system? > >>>> > >>>> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we > >>>> see)? People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM > >>>> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life > >>>> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea > >>>> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and > >>>> ignorant? > >>> > >>> Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar > >>> system are Earth-size planets? > >> > >> Depends on what you regard as 'Earth-size'. > >> > >> At least the Earth has this size. > >> > >> But roughly Mars and Venus are 'Earth-sized'. > >> > >> But - in a way - all the 'stony' planets are similar in size, while > >> gas-planets are much larger. > >> > >> TH > > > > > > How about Pluto? > > > Not a planet. Next question. If it is not a planet then explain what it is without using the word 'planet'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 07:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <dbnm23Ftci5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #534609 |
Am 22.11.2015 22:00, schrieb The Starmaker: .. >>>>> Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar >>>>> system are Earth-size planets? >>>> >>>> Depends on what you regard as 'Earth-size'. >>>> >>>> At least the Earth has this size. >>>> >>>> But roughly Mars and Venus are 'Earth-sized'. >>>> >>>> But - in a way - all the 'stony' planets are similar in size, while >>>> gas-planets are much larger. >>>> >>>> TH >>> >>> >>> How about Pluto? >>> >> Not a planet. Next question. > > If it is not a planet then explain what it is without using the word > 'planet'. Every word has a common usage. In physics the content of a scientific term is codified in what's called a definition. This definition we had to agree upon, if we want to successfully communicate about a certain subject. If you use a phrase, but disagree to it's definition, you disturb the fabric of science, even if the 'wrong' use of the term is actually allowed. But it's unscientific to use words in other ways as they are intended. Here we have the question, if Pluto belongs to the planets of our solar system. Whether or not this is the case, that is a question of the definition of the term 'planet'. And the definition is based on an agreement among scientists. You may - nevertheless - reject such definitions and use any world you like to address any possible object. This is legal, but not recommended, since nobody will understand, what you try to say. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 09:01 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <n376sj$3qr$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #534609 |
>>> How about Pluto? >>> >> Not a planet. Next question. > > If it is not a planet then explain what it is without using the word > 'planet'. > formally known as planet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 22:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <56523500$0$24145$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #534516 |
On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote: > benj wrote: >> >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>> >>>> The Starmaker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/ >>>> >>>> non·sense >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/ >>>> noun >>>> noun: nonsense >>>> >>>> 1. >>>> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. >>>> >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'... >>>> >>>> 1) Earth-size planet >>>> >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense? >>> >>> >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it, >>> >>> >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system? >> >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we >> see)? People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and >> ignorant? > > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar > system are Earth-size planets? > 2. venus and earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 14:17 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <56523F0E.16A6@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #534614 |
Sjouke Burry wrote: > > On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote: > > benj wrote: > >> > >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The Starmaker wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/ > >>>> > >>>> non·sense > >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/ > >>>> noun > >>>> noun: nonsense > >>>> > >>>> 1. > >>>> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. > >>>> > >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'... > >>>> > >>>> 1) Earth-size planet > >>>> > >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense? > >>> > >>> > >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it, > >>> > >>> > >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system? > >> > >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we > >> see)? People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM > >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life > >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea > >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and > >> ignorant? > > > > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar > > system are Earth-size planets? > > > 2. venus and earth. I mean, I just don't understand where some people come from... In skool, they teach you the earth radius is 3,959 mi. You know what you shoe size is, ... Why is it all of a sudden everyone doesn't know what the size of the earth is??? The Earth-size is 3,959 mi. Venus-size is 3,760 mi It's a smaller size shoe. Somebody mentioned Mars is Earth-size, 2,106 mi The Earth-size is 3,959 mi. If you ask kids in school today "What is the size of the earth?" Has the answered changed???? I don't get it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 21:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5652A612.4CB5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #534616 |
The Starmaker wrote: > > Sjouke Burry wrote: > > > > On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote: > > > benj wrote: > > >> > > >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > >>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> The Starmaker wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/ > > >>>> > > >>>> non·sense > > >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/ > > >>>> noun > > >>>> noun: nonsense > > >>>> > > >>>> 1. > > >>>> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense. > > >>>> > > >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'... > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) Earth-size planet > > >>>> > > >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system? > > >> > > >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we > > >> see)? People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM > > >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life > > >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea > > >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and > > >> ignorant? > > > > > > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar > > > system are Earth-size planets? > > > > > 2. venus and earth. > > I mean, I just don't understand where some people come from... > > In skool, they teach you the earth radius is 3,959 mi. > > You know what you shoe size is, ... > > Why is it all of a sudden everyone doesn't know what the size of the earth is??? > > The Earth-size is 3,959 mi. > > Venus-size is 3,760 mi > > It's a smaller size shoe. > > Somebody mentioned Mars is Earth-size, 2,106 mi > > The Earth-size is 3,959 mi. > > If you ask kids in school today "What is the size of the earth?" Has the answered changed???? > > I don't get it. Okay, I'll make it simple...only a smart person can answer this question correctly.. 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??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 22:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5655504A.7BF7@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #534718 |
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??
Now for Saul Levy, here is the definition of radius:
ra·di·us
'rade?s/
noun
noun: radius; plural noun: radii; plural noun: radiuses
1.
a straight line from the center to the circumference of a circle or sphere.
The distance from the center to the edge of a circle. It is half of the circle's diameter.
I have to repeat the question:
The Earth-size is 3,959 mi radius.
if I mutiply that number (the earth radius) 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??
Or in other words, a planet with a radius of 7,918 mi, is it Earth-size? Yes or No??
Is this question too tough for yous?
Saul Levy wrote:
>
> YOU AIN'T SMART, FAKER!
>
> EARTH'S DIAMETER IS 7918 MILES, NOT THE RADIUS, SHITFORBRAINS!
>
> YOU SURE FUCKED THAT ONE UP, LIKE THE FAKER YOU ARE!
>
> Saul Levy
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 21:37:22 -0800, The Starmaker
> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >The Starmaker wrote:
> >>
> >> Sjouke Burry wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On 22.11.15 8:11, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > > benj wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On 11/21/2015 08:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> The Starmaker wrote:
> >> > >>>>>
> >> > >>>>> http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11/19/scientists-declare-un-climate-summit-goals-irrational-based-on-nonsense-leading-us-down-a-false-path/
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> non·sense
> >> > >>>> 'nän?sens,'näns?ns/
> >> > >>>> noun
> >> > >>>> noun: nonsense
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> 1.
> >> > >>>> spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense.
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> How about some examples of "Nonsense" from yous in the 'scientific community'...
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> 1) Earth-size planet
> >> > >>>>
> >> > >>>> So that means if they find a planet that it's radius is 7,918 miles then it's Earth-size, correct or Nonsense?
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> Maybe this question was too complicated...I'll rephrase it,
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> How many Earth-size planets are in our solar system?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we
> >> > >> see)? People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM
> >> > >> truth, yet when one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life
> >> > >> forms exist elsewhere in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea
> >> > >> "kook". Let me ask YOU. Who is the Kook? Who is being superstitious and
> >> > >> ignorant?
> >> > >
> >> > > Okay, I'll rephrase the question: How many known planets in our solar
> >> > > system are Earth-size planets?
> >> > >
> >> > 2. venus and earth.
> >>
> >> I mean, I just don't understand where some people come from...
> >>
> >> In skool, they teach you the earth radius is 3,959 mi.
> >>
> >> You know what you shoe size is, ...
> >>
> >> Why is it all of a sudden everyone doesn't know what the size of the earth is???
> >>
> >> The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.
> >>
> >> Venus-size is 3,760 mi
> >>
> >> It's a smaller size shoe.
> >>
> >> Somebody mentioned Mars is Earth-size, 2,106 mi
> >>
> >> The Earth-size is 3,959 mi.
> >>
> >> If you ask kids in school today "What is the size of the earth?" Has the answered changed????
> >>
> >> I don't get it.
> >
> >
> >Okay, I'll make it simple...only a smart person can answer this question correctly..
> >
> >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??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 22:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: 'Based On Nonsense' |
| Message-ID | <1a2987fd-4f74-4ea2-b96e-3a87b12a0632@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #535298 |
On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 1:07:34 AM UTC-5, The Starmaker wrote: > Saul Levy, a poster from the astronomy newsgroup got the answer wrong. > > I have to repeat the question: No, you StrawSucker need not repeat any empty question. Deal with it. -- Mahipal "IPMM... I am missing hanson, please be well hanson."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 07:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <dbl3g0F9b7rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #535298 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 10:24 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <5655FCEE.7480@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #535302 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 18:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <n34urg$sqv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #535409 |
The Starmaker wrote: > 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. Of course not. It needs an invisible magnetic field around it, an atmosphere, water and continents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-25 12:01 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <565613AA.4FD5@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #535412 |
Jack Monaco wrote: > > The Starmaker wrote: > > > 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. > > Of course not. It needs an invisible magnetic field around it, an > atmosphere, water and continents. Yes, it is what I call..."another Earth". Just make sure the numbers are precise, exact...do not deviate from it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 04:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <dbndopFrhs7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #535412 |
Am 25.11.2015 19:32, schrieb Jack Monaco: > The Starmaker wrote: > >> 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. > > Of course not. It needs an invisible magnetic field around it, an > atmosphere, water and continents. No, planets are somehow similar, but not equal. It's like people and you will not find the same person one more time. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-26 14:21 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <n374gc$u6j$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #535557 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > Am 25.11.2015 19:32, schrieb Jack Monaco: >> The Starmaker wrote: >> >>> 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. >> >> Of course not. It needs an invisible magnetic field around it, an >> atmosphere, water and continents. > > No, planets are somehow similar, but not equal. > It's like people and you will not find the same person one more time. Those are the requirements to life existence, mister. You have a comprehending problem somewhere. Please find out where. It's like urbanization of Berlin 1900 compared to 2015. Not much difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-27 08:05 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <dbqdlbFk2ppU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #535601 |
Am 26.11.2015 15:21, schrieb Jack Monaco: >>>> 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. >>> >>> Of course not. It needs an invisible magnetic field around it, an >>> atmosphere, water and continents. >> >> No, planets are somehow similar, but not equal. >> It's like people and you will not find the same person one more time. > > Those are the requirements to life existence, mister. You have a > comprehending problem somewhere. Please find out where. It's like > urbanization of Berlin 1900 compared to 2015. Not much difference. "Berlin 1900 in colour!!!! " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-m9A8mY-U0 "Amazing Berlin City in Motion " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCR4ikptJqE TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 11:02 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: ‘Based On Nonsense’ |
| Message-ID | <U9OdnfkYUI4s287LnZ2dnUU7_82dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #534504 |
On 11/21/15 11/21/15 - 11:57 PM, benj wrote: > How many suns in OUR Galaxy? How many galaxies in the universe (that we see)? > People blindly accept probability waves in nothing at all as QM truth, yet when > one points out the OVERWHELMING probably that alien life forms exist elsewhere > in the universe, science laughs and calls the idea "kook". Your appreciation of "science" is QUITE DIFFERENT from mine. I suspect you confuse science with the opinions of scientists. But there, too, we differ enormously. At present, we have no knowledge of the existence of alien life. I believe that the consensus among physicists who have thought about this is that the existence of alien life is not only possible, but reasonably probable (but none of us quantify that). However, speculating about what alien life forms might look like is definitely "kook". Or the stuff of movie fantasies.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 11:38 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: 'Based On Nonsense' |
| Message-ID | <56536B19.791D@ix.netcom.com> |
| In reply to | #534817 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > > On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > > > > I believe that the consensus among physicists who have thought about > > this is that the existence of alien life is not only possible, but > > reasonably probable (but none of us quantify that). > > Fred Hoyle DID present his quantification: > > "Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are > about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a > random trial is only one part in 1040,000, an outrageously small > probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted > of organic soup." - Fred Hoyle > > I think that he was just a bit pessimistic, and so does everyone at SETI > or they wouldn't be there :-) Frank Drake tried it a different way and > came up with a few civilizations at our stage of development in our > galaxy right now. Maybe we'll get a better read on the probability by > studying Tabby's star ... Frank Drake calculations is WRONG. It is based on Mars having life on it's surface, and it does not...so that means you need to throw Frank Drake's calculations into the garbage where it belongs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 20:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 'Based On Nonsense' |
| Message-ID | <n2vtru$oqv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #534817 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: > Frank Drake tried it a different way and > came up with a few civilizations at our stage of development in our > galaxy right now. Maybe we'll get a better read on the probability by > studying Tabby's star ... There is no such thing as civilizations or "civilizations at our stage of development". Since those terms are terrible stochastic and relative. Ie there are indicators suggesting that "higher" advanced civilizations were in the past. Hence the future can't possibly give something more advanced, as an output governed by the equations of Entropy. Then yes, contacts may had been possible in the past. When the Universe was warmer. Good post. Very funny indeed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web