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

Groups > sci.physics > #594758 > unrolled thread

Proxima b

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Proxima b The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-26 10:14 -0700
    Re: Proxima b SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-08-28 09:22 -0400
      Re: Proxima b "Michael F. Stemper" <michael.stemper@gmail.com> - 2016-08-28 13:32 -0500
        Re: Proxima b The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-28 12:23 -0700
          Re: Proxima b edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-08-29 12:34 -0700
      Re: Proxima b The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-08-29 10:32 -0700
        Re: Proxima b SteveGG <casagiannoni@optonline.net> - 2016-08-31 07:00 -0400
          Re: Proxima b "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-08-31 20:03 -0400

#594758 — Proxima b

Why are people looking for other planets? Are they still looking for water??


I go to the supermaket
i buy sparkling water.

Do people in the 'scientific community' know what "sparkling water" is? 



oceans of sparkling water...


ancient oceans of sparkling water


(if they cannot find water, they find ancient water)


How would you like a glass of ancient water? 


liquid anceint water




i before e except after c????


i think this is ancient inglish.


did i spel ancient right????


sorry, i was taught inglish by an assistant teacher who was an assistant to an assistant subsitiue teacher.

she didn't speak inglish...here name was Mrs. Maria.

The principle name she told me was Mister Johnny.


i think she was from Chili...


Where is Chili? Is that at the north or south pole?


I remember Chili Willy...



Proxima b....it's a Spanish planet, Right? 


next to  planet Mexico z


Where is planet Cha Cha Cha???


(don't drink the water)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#594978

This, the very "nearest", is still over 4 light years away !

Obviously, there'll never be anything, "to and / or fro" .

Communications ?

"Hi !"
< 4+ years >
"Hi !"
<4+ years >
"Tell us about yourself."
< 4+ years >
etc, etc, etc ...

On Fri, 26 Aug 2016 10:14:50 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Why are people looking for other planets? Are they still looking for water??
>
>
>I go to the supermaket
>i buy sparkling water.
>
>Do people in the 'scientific community' know what "sparkling water" is? 
>
>
>
>oceans of sparkling water...
>
>
>ancient oceans of sparkling water
>
>
>(if they cannot find water, they find ancient water)
>
>
>How would you like a glass of ancient water? 
>
>
>liquid anceint water
>
>
>
>
>i before e except after c????
>
>
>i think this is ancient inglish.
>
>
>did i spel ancient right????
>
>
>sorry, i was taught inglish by an assistant teacher who was an assistant to an assistant subsitiue teacher.
>
>she didn't speak inglish...here name was Mrs. Maria.
>
>The principle name she told me was Mister Johnny.
>
>
>i think she was from Chili...
>
>
>Where is Chili? Is that at the north or south pole?
>
>
>I remember Chili Willy...
>
>
>
>Proxima b....it's a Spanish planet, Right? 
>
>
>next to  planet Mexico z
>
>
>Where is planet Cha Cha Cha???
>
>
>(don't drink the water)

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

#594994

On 2016-08-28 08:22, SteveGG wrote:
> This, the very "nearest", is still over 4 light years away !
>
> Obviously, there'll never be anything, "to and / or fro" .
>
> Communications ?
>
> "Hi !"
> < 4+ years >
> "Hi !"
> <4+ years >
> "Tell us about yourself."
> < 4+ years >
> etc, etc, etc ...

Asimov had the solution to this problem back in 1962, when he wrote
"My Son, the Physicist".

-- 
Michael F. Stemper
This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.

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

#594996

Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> 
> On 2016-08-28 08:22, SteveGG wrote:
> > This, the very "nearest", is still over 4 light years away !
> >
> > Obviously, there'll never be anything, "to and / or fro" .
> >
> > Communications ?
> >
> > "Hi !"
> > < 4+ years >
> > "Hi !"
> > <4+ years >
> > "Tell us about yourself."
> > < 4+ years >
> > etc, etc, etc ...
> 
> Asimov had the solution to this problem back in 1962, when he wrote
> "My Son, the Physicist".
> 
> --
> Michael F. Stemper
> This post contains greater than 95% post-consumer bytes by weight.


Science fiction is just another word for...thought experiments, and 'thought experiments' is just another word for ...science fiction.


Relativity...is 'just a theory', a thought experirment..science fiction.

Relativity is science fiction, is it not? It's still a ...theory. 


Relativity, possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true, ...a theory, just a theory.



To put it simply...

all theories are science fiction, because all science fiction are thought experiments, and
thought experiments is just another word for science fiction.

It's a loop you cannot get out of.

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

#595093

On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 3:23:49 PM UTC-4, The Starmaker wrote:
> Michael F. Stemper wrote:
[]
> > Asimov had the solution to this problem back in 1962, when he wrote
> > "My Son, the Physicist".
[]
> 
> Science fiction is just another word for...thought experiments,
> and 'thought experiments' is just another word for ...science fiction.
> 
> 
> Relativity...is 'just a theory', a thought experirment..science fiction.
> 
> Relativity is science fiction, is it not? It's still a ...theory. 
> 
> 
> Relativity, possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true,
> ...a theory, just a theory.
> 
> 
> 
> To put it simply...
> 
> all theories are science fiction,
> because all science fiction are thought experiments, and
> thought experiments is just another word for science fiction.
> 
> It's a loop you cannot get out of.

Buzz! wrong, but thanks for playing.
The difference comes when the theory is put to the test.
Theories that make predictions and when those predictions 
turn out to match the experiments then we have a winner.

Some theories last a long time and then are replaced by a better one.
Newton's theory of motion lasted about 200 years.
Relativity is only about half that age.
So we may have to wait another 100 years before SR&GR are
replaced by something better.

So barring divine revelation, we may never get to the truth,
but we always seem to get closer.

So once you get out of your loop, maybe you can actually
think about and understand how science works.

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

#595071

SteveGG wrote:
> 
> This, the very "nearest", is still over 4 light years away !
> 
> Obviously, there'll never be anything, "to and / or fro" .
> 
> Communications ?
> 
> "Hi !"
> < 4+ years >
> "Hi !"
> <4+ years >
> "Tell us about yourself."
> < 4+ years >
> etc, etc, etc ...



i think if you use a little....science fiction, you can cut down to
a few seconds.

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

#595322

Essentially, all science agrees, that we'll be limited to 3E8
meters/second, and typically far, far less. Take it from there ..

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

#595397

In article <hvddsbtrctljstub2pktiuct3daa91mjht@4ax.com>, 
casagiannoni@optonline.net says...
> 
> Essentially, all science agrees, that we'll be limited to 3E8
> meters/second, and typically far, far less. Take it from there ..

For certain values of "all science" that do not include General 
Relativity.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web