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

Groups > sci.physics > #894271 > unrolled thread

What came first the stars or the earth?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 14:40 -0700
    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-04 16:26 -0700
      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-05 07:08 +0200
      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-05 11:05 +0200
        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-05 09:41 -0700
    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-04 23:39 -0700
      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-05 14:31 -0700
        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-06 10:39 +0200
          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-06 12:56 +0000
            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:26 +0200
              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-07 08:37 +0000
                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-09 08:35 +0200
                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-09 14:38 +0000
                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 07:51 +0200
                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-12 05:56 +0000
                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 08:33 +0200
                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 08:45 +0000
                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-14 10:25 +0200
                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 20:21 +0000
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-15 08:38 +0200
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 21:25 +0200
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:26 +0200
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-16 20:07 +0200
                                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 20:20 +0200
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:01 -0700
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 13:29 -0700
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 22:49 +0200
                                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-15 14:13 -0700
                                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-16 06:55 +0200
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 17:16 +0000
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-15 17:28 +0000
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Richard Hachel <rh@tiscali.fr> - 2025-09-15 18:35 +0000
                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 11:54 -0700
              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:23 +0200
                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-10 10:40 +0200
                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-10 20:57 +0200
                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-10 21:25 +0200
                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-12 08:07 +0200
                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 12:54 +0200
                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 12:58 +0200
                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-12 14:27 +0200
                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 14:31 +0200
                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 14:06 +0200
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 14:08 +0200
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 12:31 +0000
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 20:01 +0200
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 21:01 +0200
                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 09:05 +0200
                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-13 21:37 +0200
                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-13 22:23 +0200
                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-13 20:30 +0000
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 06:34 +0200
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 07:44 +0000
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 10:36 +0200
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Python <jp@python.invalid> - 2025-09-14 10:35 +0000
                                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 13:16 +0200
                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 11:13 +0200
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 12:14 +0200
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-14 21:10 +0200
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-14 22:56 +0200
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-15 12:04 +0200
                                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-15 16:09 +0200
                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-15 13:37 +0200
                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-16 08:33 +0200
                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-16 11:42 +0200
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:35 -0700
          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 18:10 +0200
          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:29 -0700
            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-07 10:34 +0200
          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2025-09-08 14:24 +0200
        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2025-09-06 11:14 +0200
        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 09:53 -0700
          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-06 13:34 -0700
            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:37 -0700
              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-07 14:11 -0700
                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-08 09:53 -0700
                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-08 12:10 -0700
                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 12:20 -0700
                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 12:59 -0700
                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 13:33 -0700
                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-09 14:16 -0700
                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:26 -0700
                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-09 16:29 -0700
                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-10 13:18 -0700
                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 10:01 -0700
                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-11 14:19 -0700
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-11 22:29 -0700
                                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:11 -0700
                                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 11:25 -0700
                                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 12:05 -0700
                                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2025-09-12 21:22 +0200
                                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 13:53 -0700
                                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 13:40 -0700
                                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 13:55 -0700
                                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 15:40 -0700
                                                  Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> - 2025-09-12 15:54 -0700
                                                    Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-12 22:31 -0700
                                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 09:56 -0700
                                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2025-09-13 09:11 +0200
                                      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 00:40 -0700
                                        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-14 12:54 -0700
                                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:24 -0700
                                            Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-15 10:48 -0700
                                              Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-16 10:04 -0700
                                                Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-16 15:11 -0700
                                          Re: What came first the stars or the earth? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-14 20:27 -0700
      Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 10:06 -0700
        Re: What came first the stars or the earth? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2025-09-06 16:48 -0700

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#894328

Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
> Have you ever heard of some idiot
> babbling that what is 1000 years
> for one observer may be easily
> 500 years for another one?
> 

Not until now.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894329

On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>
>> Have you ever heard of some idiot
>> babbling that what is 1000 years
>> for one observer may be easily
>> 500 years for another one?
>>
> 
> Not until now.

Why am I not surprised.
Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
doesn't sound familiar?

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

#894345

Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Woźniak:

I had never heard anybody babbling that
what is 1000 years for one observer may
be easily  500 years for another one
until I heard this idiot babble it:

>>>
>>> Have you ever heard of some idiot
>>> babbling that what is 1000 years
>>> for one observer may be easily
>>> 500 years for another one?
>>>

So:

>> Not until now.

> 
> Why am I not surprised.
> Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
> doesn't sound familiar?

Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Since you are too ignorant of basic physics and mathematics
to be able to read the evidence, you better keep claiming that
the experimental physicists who have performed the experiments
are brainwashed religious maniacs.

As you know, that will make you look smart.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894346

On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> 
> I had never heard anybody babbling that
> what is 1000 years for one observer may
> be easily  500 years for another one
> until I heard this idiot babble it:
> 
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever heard of some idiot
>>>> babbling that what is 1000 years
>>>> for one observer may be easily
>>>> 500 years for another one?
>>>>
> 
> So:
> 
>>> Not until now.
> 
>>
>> Why am I not surprised.
>> Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
>> doesn't sound familiar?
> 
> Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.

As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
one observer 500 years for another one.

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

#894347

Le 13/09/2025 à 14:08, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> 
>> I had never heard anybody babbling that
>> what is 1000 years for one observer may
>> be easily  500 years for another one
>> until I heard this idiot babble it:
>> 
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever heard of some idiot
>>>>> babbling that what is 1000 years
>>>>> for one observer may be easily
>>>>> 500 years for another one?
>>>>>
>> 
>> So:
>> 
>>>> Not until now.
>> 
>>>
>>> Why am I not surprised.
>>> Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
>>> doesn't sound familiar?
>> 
>> Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
> 
> As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
> sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
> one observer 500 years for another one.

"anything goes" is back! Nurses!!!

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

#894375

Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:

> Le 13/09/2025 à 14:08, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit :
> > On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
> >>> On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
> >> 
> >> I had never heard anybody babbling that
> >> what is 1000 years for one observer may
> >> be easily  500 years for another one
> >> until I heard this idiot babble it:
> >> 
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Have you ever heard of some idiot
> >>>>> babbling that what is 1000 years
> >>>>> for one observer may be easily
> >>>>> 500 years for another one?
> >>>>>
> >> 
> >> So:
> >> 
> >>>> Not until now.
> >> 
> >>>
> >>> Why am I not surprised.
> >>> Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
> >>> doesn't sound familiar?
> >> 
> >> Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
> > 
> > As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
> > sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
> > one observer 500 years for another one.
> 
> "anything goes" is back! Nurses!!!

'Those nice young men in their clean white coats' may be better.

They may even take him away,

Jan

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

#894378

On 9/15/2025 8:01 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> Le 13/09/2025 à 14:08, Maciej Wo?niak a écrit :
>>> On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
>>>>> On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
>>>>
>>>> I had never heard anybody babbling that
>>>> what is 1000 years for one observer may
>>>> be easily  500 years for another one
>>>> until I heard this idiot babble it:
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have you ever heard of some idiot
>>>>>>> babbling that what is 1000 years
>>>>>>> for one observer may be easily
>>>>>>> 500 years for another one?
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So:
>>>>
>>>>>> Not until now.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why am I not surprised.
>>>>> Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
>>>>> doesn't sound familiar?
>>>>
>>>> Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
>>>
>>> As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
>>> sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
>>> one observer 500 years for another one.
>>
>> "anything goes" is back! Nurses!!!
> 
> 'Those nice young men in their clean white coats' may be better.
> 
> They may even take him away,

Keep dreaming, poor trash. Dreaming
is good for a delusional idiot.

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

#894342

Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 12.09.2025 08:07, skrev Thomas Heger:
>> Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>> Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>> Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>>>> Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do 
>>>>>> not belong to the same time.
>>>>>
>>>>> Consider a star 10000 light years away.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
>>>>
>>>> No!
>>>
>>> But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away.
>>
>> You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!!
>>
> 
> You snipped everything I wrote and repeat what you have said before.
> 
> Please address the following:
> ===============================
> Consider a star 10000 light years away.
> The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties
> of the star 10000 years ago:
> its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star,
> or a star approaching the end of its life-
> If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan
> will be ~ 100 million years.
> If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun,
> its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years.
> If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan
> will be ~ 70 billion years.
> 
> The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star
> 10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is
> a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be
> known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position
> will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where
> the star is now.
> 
> We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago.
> 
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
> | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
> | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
> | That is a HUGE difference.
> |
> | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
> | the universe isn't.
> |
> | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
> | not belong to the same time.
> 
> We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
> a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
> main sequence star now.
> 
> It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
> ago is not real now.
> 
> What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
> Mirages?
> 
> We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
> from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
> and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.

Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with 
millions of light-years.

well, now we have a 'little' problem:

if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression 
of the stars 'real'.

It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.

sure, the picture and the content were once real.

But the sender might already be dead.



> And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
> (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
> of years.


The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate 
in cosmology.

Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the 
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an 
error in the positions.

We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a 
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a 
relatively close position.

And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could 
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is 
actually nearer to us.

So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which 
were never that close.

> The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
> from each other.

That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way.

> That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them
> "belong to separate times."
> 
> They are both living at the same time.
'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.

I meant:

if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand 
light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events 
belong to a different time than foreground events.

The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.

Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not 
belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.

Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know, 
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to 
the foreground.

We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to 
estimate the distances.

But those theories are most likely wrong.TH

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

#894348

Den 13.09.2025 09:05, skrev Thomas Heger:
> Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
>>
>> Please address the following:
>> ===============================

This is the scenario I ask you to consider:

>> Consider a star 10000 light years away.
>> The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties
>> of the star 10000 years ago:
>> its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star,
>> or a star approaching the end of its life-
>> If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan
>> will be ~ 100 million years.
>> If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun,
>> its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years.
>> If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan
>> will be ~ 70 billion years.
>>
>> The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star
>> 10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is
>> a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be
>> known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position
>> will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where
>> the star is now.
>>
>> We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago.
>>
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> | We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
>> | where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
>> | the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
>> | That is a HUGE difference.
>> |
>> | The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
>> | the universe isn't.
>> |
>> | Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
>> | not belong to the same time.
>>
>> We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
>> a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
>> main sequence star now.
>>
>> It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
>> ago is not real now.
>>
>> What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
>> Mirages?
>>
>> We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
>> from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
>> and the Sun still are ~1000

> 
> Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with 
> millions of light-years.

This is not cosmology, it is astronomy.

I will snip everything which does not address my scenario.

>> We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
>> from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
>> and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
>> And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
>> (light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
>> of years.

> The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate 
> in cosmology.

I ignore everything which does not address my scenario.

>> The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
>> from each other.

> That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way.

Yes, that is indeed necessarily the case.

We have one main sequence star 10000 ly from the Sun.
We know a main sequence star will exist 10000 years
after it was observed, and we know that the Sun existed
10000 years ago.
It doesn't matter if the star has moved a little relative
to Sun.
Both stars existed 10000 years ago, and they still exist now.

> 
>> That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them
>> "belong to separate times."
>>
>> They are both living at the same time.

> 'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.

It is a common expression in astronomy-
Stars are born, live, and die.

> 
> I meant:
> 
> if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand 
> light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events 
> belong to a different time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!

Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago, and they still exist in the same universe.
During the 10000 years the Sun has received photons from the star,
and the star has received photons from from the Sun.

If there is a planet with intelligent life around the star,
they can see the Sun in their telescope, like we can see the star
on our telescope.

Both stars are equally real, and both live at the same time.

Do you understand this?

Is it really possible to fail to understand this?

> 
> The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.

Which "discrepancy" can easily be millions of years?

> Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not 
> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.

In the star catalogues the "position" is the Right Ascension
(aka longitude) and Declination (aka latitude) in the equatorial
coordinate system, where the star is observed at a particular
time like EPOCH J2000. The RA and Dec are as seen from the Sun.

Astronomers know that to see the star in their telescope, they have
to correct the RA and Dec with the proper motion, stellar aberration
and parallax.

Astronomers know that this is not the position of the stars now.
And since the spectrum will reveal where in its lifespan a star is,
the astronomer will know if the star still exists.
For the best known stars, when the proper motion, distance and
radial velocity are precisely known it is obviously possible
to calculate the position of the star now. I am sure it is done in
some special cases, but generally, what would be the point?

Astronomers must know where to point their telescope!

What is your problem with this?

> 
> Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know, 
> which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to 
> the foreground.
> 
> We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to 
> estimate the distances.

Parallax is simple geometry, and is no uncertain "assumption".
Hipparcos has measured the distance to more that two million stars
in the Milky Way.

There are other methods as well. The best known is probably Cepheids.
The distance to a galaxy can be determined if a Cepheid is observed
in it.

Look it up.

> 
> But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
>

Can you please name the methods for determining the distance
which are most likely wrong?
-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894349

On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
> Please address my scenario!
> 
> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
> 10000 years ago

Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?

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

#894350

Le 13/09/2025 à 22:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> erent time than foreground events.
>> Please address my scenario!
>> 
>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>> 10000 years ago
> 
> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
> 300 years ago for someone else?

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129

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

#894351

On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 13/09/2025 à 22:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> erent time than foreground events.
>>> Please address my scenario!
>>>
>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>> 10000 years ago
>>
>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>> 300 years ago for someone else?
> 
> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
> 
> 
Oh, I'm sure that a real time (any
of them)  has nothing in common with
the babling of your worshipped idiot.
I'm glad you're realizing it too, poor
stinker.

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

#894353

Le 14/09/2025 à 06:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 13/09/2025 à 22:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> erent time than foreground events.
>>>> Please address my scenario!
>>>>
>>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>>> 10000 years ago
>>>
>>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>>> 300 years ago for someone else?
>> 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
>> 
>> 
> Oh

Yep

> I'm sure that a real time (any
> of them)  has nothing in common with
> [A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too

Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.

> poor stinker.

Nice signature.

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

#894355

On 9/14/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
> Le 14/09/2025 à 06:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 22:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> erent time than foreground events.
>>>>> Please address my scenario!
>>>>>
>>>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>>>> 10000 years ago
>>>>
>>>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>>>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>>>> 300 years ago for someone else?
>>>
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
>>>
>>>
>> Oh
> 
> Yep
> 
>> I'm sure that a real time (any
>> of them)  has nothing in common with
>> [A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
> 
> Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.

When I said that according to your
idiot guru time dilates - what did
you do? You showed me a time with
an obvious intention "look! time!
Do you think it dilate? NO!!!".
Of course it doesn't, a dilating
time only exists in your moronic
gedanken/fabricated tales, poor
stinker.

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

#894358

Le 14/09/2025 à 10:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 9/14/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 14/09/2025 à 06:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 22:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>> erent time than foreground events.
>>>>>> Please address my scenario!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>>>>> 10000 years ago
>>>>>
>>>>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>>>>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>>>>> 300 years ago for someone else?
>>>>
>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh
>> 
>> Yep
>> 
>>> I'm sure that a real time (any
>>> of them)  has nothing in common with
>>> [A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
>> 
>> Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.
> 
> When I said [a bunch of idiocies, as usual]

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/ac6b9b

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

#894359

On 9/14/2025 12:35 PM, Python wrote:
> Le 14/09/2025 à 10:36, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>> On 9/14/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 14/09/2025 à 06:34, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>> On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>> Le 13/09/2025 à 22:23, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>> erent time than foreground events.
>>>>>>> Please address my scenario!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>>>>>> 10000 years ago
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>>>>>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>>>>>> 300 years ago for someone else?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Oh
>>>
>>> Yep
>>>
>>>> I'm sure that a real time (any
>>>> of them)  has nothing in common with
>>>> [A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
>>>
>>> Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.
>>
>> When I said [a bunch of idiocies, as usual]

Correct, poor stinker, I said that  time dilates
according to  your insane guru, what is a bunch of
idiocies for sure.

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

#894356

Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> erent time than foreground events.
>> Please address my scenario!
>>
>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>> 10000 years ago

> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling 

Indeed I hear an idiot babbling:

> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
> 300 years ago for someone else?
> 

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894357

On 9/14/2025 11:13 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> erent time than foreground events.
>>> Please address my scenario!
>>>
>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>> 10000 years ago
> 
>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling 
> 
> Indeed I hear an idiot babbling:
> 
>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>> 300 years ago for someone else?

Idiotic, isn't it?
Actually, even more stupid than announcing
basic math false, what the same idiot
did later.
How fortunate that even such an idiot
as you are isn't stupid enough to treat
that idiot's babbling seriously. You're
only stupid enough to worship it, together
with other braqinwashed religious maniacs.

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

#894360

Den 14.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>> Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>>> 10000 years ago

>>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>>> 300 years ago for someone else?

> Idiotic, isn't it?

Indeed it is.

You claim that according to Einstein:
"what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
  300 years ago for someone else."

This statement is so ambiguous that it isn't even wrong,
it is meaningless. It depends on the what "what" refers to.

In the context you have used it, "what" is:
"The light you see in the telescope was emitted from the star"

So the statement becomes:
The light you see in the telescope was emitted from the star
1000 years ago for you, but the light someone else see in
the telescope may be emitted from the same star  300 years ago for 
someone else.

Idiotic, isn't it?

But if "What" is:'
"The proper time measured between two events"
then the statement becomes:

If you measure the proper time between two events to be
1000 years, someone else may measure the proper time between
the same two events to be 300 years.

This is a true statement.
But to make this happen, "you" and "someone else" would have to
travel between the events along very different paths in spacetime,
and accelerations and speeds would have to be of magnitudes
which are impossible to achieve in the real world.

But this experiment is performed in the real world,
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf

It is really two experiment:

Experiment 1:
Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground.
Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on
an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction.
When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
Result:
Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A-

Experiment 2:
Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground.
Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on
an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction.
When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
Result:
Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A-

You can see the principle of the calculation here:
(Well, not you, but potential lurkers can)
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf


Maciej, now you can demonstrate how smart you are by calling
Hafele and Keating "brainwashed religious maniacs".

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#894364

On 9/14/2025 9:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 14.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>> Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
>>>> On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
>>>>> 10000 years ago
> 
>>>> Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
>>>> what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>>>> 300 years ago for someone else?
> 
>> Idiotic, isn't it?
> 
> Indeed it is.
> 
> You claim that according to Einstein:
> "what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
>   300 years ago for someone else."

Keep raving and spitting, poor trash,
what your  idiot guru "predicted" is
not a matter of opinion.
And you're even stupid enough to admit
that the real measurements have nothing
in common with that...
> 
> This statement is so ambiguous that it isn't even wrong,
> it is meaningless. It depends on the what "what" refers to.
> 
> In the context you have used it, "what" is:
> "The light you see in the telescope was emitted from the star"
> 
> So the statement becomes:
> The light you see in the telescope was emitted from the star
> 1000 years ago for you, but the light someone else see in
> the telescope may be emitted from the same star  300 years ago for 
> someone else.
> 
> Idiotic, isn't it?

Absolutely.


> But to make this happen, "you" and "someone else" would have to
> travel between the events along very different paths in spacetime,

Paul, poor idiot, what was your "path of
spacetime" 400 years ago? Did you have any
mass that time or were you massless, maybe?




> and accelerations and speeds would have to be of magnitudes
> which are impossible to achieve in the real world.
> 
> But this experiment is performed in the real world,

Sure, sure, planets are moving, very much
evidence for that, so we should agree that
angels pushing them are confirmed very
strongly.

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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web