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

Groups > sci.physics > #534833 > unrolled thread

Stars behind the Sun - revisited

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Stars behind the Sun - revisited Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 17:50 +0000
    Stars behind the Sun - revisited HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 10:07 -0800
      Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited benj <none@gmail.com> - 2015-11-24 00:05 -0500
    Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 21:51 +0000
    Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-24 03:17 +0000
      Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-24 01:49 -0500
      Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 11:59 +0000
        Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2015-11-24 18:22 +0000
          Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-24 21:04 +0000
            Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:08 +0000
              Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbertopal.org> - 2015-11-24 22:42 +0000
                Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:57 +0000
                  Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-24 23:19 +0000
                    Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-25 00:04 +0000
                      Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Jack Monaco <jacksh@umbBertopal.org> - 2015-11-25 17:25 +0000
          Re: Stars behind the Sun - revisited Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-11-24 22:17 +0000

#534833 — Stars behind the Sun - revisited

I came to realize that the "Stars behind the Sun" gedanken, wannabe 
empirical observation, is a fake. And here is how I know it. 

Those days no clocks able to indicate accurate time, of say, fraction of a 
second, were available. Time was "what a clock showed". This is OK, since 
Relativity is done merely mentally, in a gedanken fashion anyway 
(logicality). 

However, to say that a particular star, or constellation of stars, are to 
be found behind the Sun, at a very precise location and very precise 
instant of time, is aberration. Having no accurate time disponible, those 
stars are to be randomly positioned, behind the Sun as well as outside the 
corona.

Putting it simpler, a picture showing some stars outside the Sun's corona 
under a Solar Eclipse, cannot possibly serves as Proof, having no Time 
Instances associated with it. Period. Here is where my theory of Divergent 
Matter enters into the picture. More about it latter on.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#534839

Woo woo!

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

#534990

On 11/23/2015 01:07 PM, HVAC wrote:
> Woo woo!
>
Please explain this science terminology, H&V. I'm not familiar with it. 
And neither is anyone else I know who has a science education.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

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

#534915

Walter Ilinois wrote:
 
> Putting it simpler, a picture showing some stars outside the Sun's
> corona under a Solar Eclipse, cannot possibly serves as Proof, having no
> Time Instances associated with it. Period. Here is where my theory of
> Divergent Matter enters into the picture. More about it latter on.

And btw, I just came across, I believe this is the closest we may get on a 
moon landing. The facilities are there. Impressive. I'm impressed.


Inside WORLD- Worldviews- Vladimir Putin’s massive,triple decker war room 
revealed 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAVphz_zmec

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

#534970

The nymshifting troll <walin@wej98j5q.org> writes:

>I came to realize that the "Stars behind the Sun" gedanken, wannabe 
>empirical observation, is a fake. And here is how I know it. 

>However, to say that a particular star, or constellation of stars, are to 
>be found behind the Sun, at a very precise location and very precise 
>instant of time, is aberration. Having no accurate time disponible, those 
>stars are to be randomly positioned, behind the Sun as well as outside the 
>corona.

>Putting it simpler, a picture showing some stars outside the Sun's corona 
>under a Solar Eclipse, cannot possibly serves as Proof, having no Time 
>Instances associated with it. Period. Here is where my theory of Divergent 
>Matter enters into the picture. More about it latter on.

No need for highly accurate time.  Just take a good photo of the star near
the limb of the sun which includes other nearby stars not near the limb.  
Compare the photo to one of the same stars taken six months earlier (or
later). Is one of the stars of that constellation out of place in the
eclipse photo?  The one near the sun's limb?  By how much?  Does that
number agree with relativity (or Newtonian mechanics)?

Ideally the stars involved (esp. the one near the limb of the sun should
be well-known stars, not an obscure background star, but we don't get to
pick and choose, I guess.

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

#534996

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 03:17:52 +0000 (UTC),
moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote:

>The nymshifting troll <walin@wej98j5q.org> writes:
>
>>I came to realize that the "Stars behind the Sun" gedanken, wannabe 
>>empirical observation, is a fake. And here is how I know it. 
>
>>However, to say that a particular star, or constellation of stars, are to 
>>be found behind the Sun, at a very precise location and very precise 
>>instant of time, is aberration. Having no accurate time disponible, those 
>>stars are to be randomly positioned, behind the Sun as well as outside the 
>>corona.
>
>>Putting it simpler, a picture showing some stars outside the Sun's corona 
>>under a Solar Eclipse, cannot possibly serves as Proof, having no Time 
>>Instances associated with it. Period. Here is where my theory of Divergent 
>>Matter enters into the picture. More about it latter on.
>
>No need for highly accurate time.  Just take a good photo of the star near
>the limb of the sun which includes other nearby stars not near the limb.  
>Compare the photo to one of the same stars taken six months earlier (or
>later). Is one of the stars of that constellation out of place in the
>eclipse photo?  The one near the sun's limb?  By how much?  Does that
>number agree with relativity (or Newtonian mechanics)?
>
>Ideally the stars involved (esp. the one near the limb of the sun should
>be well-known stars, not an obscure background star, but we don't get to
>pick and choose, I guess.

       Why 6 months either way?   :-)

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

#535010

Michael Moroney wrote:

> The nymshifting troll <walin@wej98j5q.org> writes:
>>Putting it simpler, a picture showing some stars outside the Sun's corona
>>under a Solar Eclipse, cannot possibly serves as Proof, having no Time
>>Instances associated with it. Period. Here is where my theory of Divergent
>>Matter enters into the picture. More about it latter on.
> 
> No need for highly accurate time.  Just take a good photo of the star near
> the limb of the sun which includes other nearby stars not near the limb.
> Compare the photo to one of the same stars taken six months earlier (or
> later).

Why six months?


F'up2 .relativity

PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

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

#535084

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

>Michael Moroney wrote:

>> No need for highly accurate time.  Just take a good photo of the star near
>> the limb of the sun which includes other nearby stars not near the limb.
>> Compare the photo to one of the same stars taken six months earlier (or
>> later).

>Why six months?

At the time of the eclipse, those stars are normally not visible as they
are above the horizon during the day.

Six months later/earlier is when those stars will be clearly visible at
night.  You actually can get away with less time, just as long as that
particular group of stars/constellation rises/hasn't set at night.

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

#535181

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Six months later/earlier is when those stars will be clearly visible at
> night

Three months will suffice.

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

#535201

The nym-shifting troll posted as “Jack Monaco”:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Six months later/earlier is when those stars will be clearly visible at
>> night
> 
> Three months will suffice.

In general, no.


F'up2 sci.physics.relativity

PointedEars
-- 
Two neutrinos go through a bar ...

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#535222

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The nym-shifting troll posted as “Jack Monaco”:
> 
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Six months later/earlier is when those stars will be clearly visible
>>> at night
>> 
>> Three months will suffice.
> 
> In general, no.

Even one month would be pretty okay, depending on the brightness and the 
atmospheric condition. Just draw a tangent bordering the dark hemisphere, 
pointedhead. One more proof on your halfengineering concern.

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

#535230

The nym-shifting troll posted as “Jack Monaco”:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> The nym-shifting troll posted as “Jack Monaco”:
>>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Six months later/earlier is when those stars will be clearly visible
>>>> at night
>>> Three months will suffice.
>> In general, no.
> 
> Even one month would be pretty okay, depending on the brightness and the
> atmospheric condition.  […]

One month might be OK.  Three months would certainly not, as the pertinent 
stars would either not be visible in the night sky or they would only be 
visible shortly before or after dawn/sunset – non-ideal observation 
conditions.

> Just draw a tangent bordering the dark hemisphere, 
> pointedhead. One more proof on your halfengineering concern.

Once again you have no clue what you are talking about.  All you can do is 
throwing insults, although not very imaginative ones.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#535238

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

>>>> Three months will suffice.
>>> In general, no.
>> 
>> Even one month would be pretty okay, depending on the brightness and
>> the atmospheric condition.  […]
> 
> One month might be OK.  Three months would certainly not, as the
> pertinent stars would either not be visible in the night sky or they
> would only be visible shortly before or after dawn/sunset – non-ideal
> observation conditions.

I understand you realized you've been caught insufficient once again.
 
However, "stars not visible in the night sky"?? When? Can't you just use 
another lie. After one month there is a 30⁰ separation between the stars 
and the Sun. Three will give 90⁰.

>> Just draw a tangent bordering the dark hemisphere,
>> pointedhead. One more proof on your halfengineering concern.
> 
> Once again you have no clue what you are talking about.  All you can do
> is throwing insults, although not very imaginative ones.

Insults me? Facts can't be insults. I am a newcomer to this forum. Nice to 
meet you.

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

#535248

The ’nym-shifting troll posted as “Jack Monaco”:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>> Three months will suffice.
>>>> In general, no.
>>> Even one month would be pretty okay, depending on the brightness and
>>> the atmospheric condition.  […]
>> One month might be OK.  Three months would certainly not, as the
>> pertinent stars would either not be visible in the night sky or they
>> would only be visible shortly before or after dawn/sunset – non-ideal
>> observation conditions.
> 
> I understand you realized you've been caught insufficient once again.

If only you knew what ridiculous gibberish you are spouting.
  
> However, "stars not visible in the night sky"?? When?

“Above the same location” is implied here.  You do not carry a 3+ m 
telescope around the globe, you know.

> Can't you just use another lie.

It is not a lie.  Use astronomy software to find out, as your cortex 
simulation is obviously failing you.  I can recommend Celestia for finding 
the dates of the eclipses and Stellarium for a realistic simulation of the 
observation conditions 3 and 6 months before/after it.  I could prove it to 
you with examples of stars, but in your case that would be a waste of time.  
You only want to troll.

> After one month there is a 30⁰ separation between the stars and the Sun.
> Three will give 90⁰.

What a mindbogglingly stupid nonsense.  You did not even get the unit of 
angles right: it is “°” (degree), not “⁰” (superscript zero).
 
>>> Just draw a tangent bordering the dark hemisphere,
>>> pointedhead. One more proof on your halfengineering concern.
>> 
>> Once again you have no clue what you are talking about.  All you can do
>> is throwing insults, although not very imaginative ones.
> 
> Insults me? Facts can't be insults.

What you are posting are not facts, but wishful thinking.

> I am a newcomer to this forum.

No, you are just an old idiot with a new pseudonym.

> Nice to meet you.

Whom are you kidding?  Not everyone is as stupid as you, “Jack”.  Go on, get 
a new ’nym.  Nobody will notice.  Trust me.

*PLONK*


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#535387

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> The ’nym-shifting troll posted as “Jack Monaco”:
> 
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>>>>> Three months will suffice.
>>>>> In general, no.
>>>> Even one month would be pretty okay, depending on the brightness and
>>>> the atmospheric condition.  […]
>>> One month might be OK.  Three months would certainly not, as the
>>> pertinent stars would either not be visible in the night sky or they
>>> would only be visible shortly before or after dawn/sunset – non-ideal
>>> observation conditions.
>> 
>> I understand you realized you've been caught insufficient once again.
> 
> If only you knew what ridiculous gibberish you are spouting.

What are you f.s.? Let me rephrase for the uninitiated. You've been caught 
*STUPID* once again. Is it clearer now?

>> However, "stars not visible in the night sky"?? When?
> 
> “Above the same location” is implied here.  You do not carry a 3+ m
> telescope around the globe, you know.

What a moron, there is no same location in this Universe. The Earth 
revolves around its axis, known also in ancient scriptures as "is been a 
day and a night". Hence a day later the separation will be ~30/30=1⁰ 
(degrees for the stupid, lol)

>> Can't you just use another lie.
> 
> It is not a lie.  Use astronomy software to find out, as your cortex
> simulation is obviously failing you.  I can recommend Celestia for
> finding the dates of the eclipses and Stellarium for a realistic
> simulation of the observation conditions 3 and 6 months before/after it.

You are so stupid, a not even almost a bachelor half-engineer, you need 
astronomy software and a computer program helping you not to read. What a 
maroon.

>> After one month there is a 30⁰ separation between the stars and the
>> Sun. Three will give 90⁰.
> 
> What a mindbogglingly stupid nonsense.  You did not even get the unit of
> angles right: it is “°” (degree), not “⁰” (superscript zero).

Idiot, persistent. Now piss off. Since your only reason to be here is to 
be stupid and to *plonk*. Build yourself a bit of momentum first, 
otherwise you move your feet without change of location.

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

#535210

Michael Moroney wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> No need for highly accurate time.  Just take a good photo of the star
>>> near the limb of the sun which includes other nearby stars not near the
>>> limb. Compare the photo to one of the same stars taken six months
>>> earlier (or later).
>> Why six months?
> 
> At the time of the eclipse, those stars are normally not visible as they
> are above the horizon during the day.
> 
> Six months later/earlier is when those stars will be clearly visible at
> night.  You actually can get away with less time, just as long as that
> particular group of stars/constellation rises/hasn't set at night.

Right, thanks.


F'up2 .relativity

PointedEars
-- 
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
 testing your knowledge means everything.”
   —Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
    in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web