Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #630134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 172 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-22 22:38 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 15:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-22 22:58 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 16:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:01 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:54 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 18:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 01:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:35 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 08:15 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 15:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-23 10:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2017-04-23 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-30 18:06 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:11 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 11:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 18:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:14 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:25 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 19:39 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:00 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:09 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:23 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:24 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:26 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-10 21:42 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-10 23:11 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:32 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:26 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 12:38 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Beezel Bub <nunya@bizz.invalid> - 2017-05-07 11:24 -0600
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 17:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:32 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:36 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 21:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 15:02 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:59 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 14:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:24 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-05-07 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:35 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 13:06 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 18:50 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:12 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-07 19:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 12:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 11:57 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-08 00:09 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-07 16:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 14:34 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 13:48 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:16 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Marek Novotny <marek.novotny@marspolar.com> - 2017-05-06 10:40 -0500
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:27 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 14:56 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:04 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:14 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:16 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:25 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:27 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 20:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:56 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:06 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:13 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:20 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:31 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:34 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:00 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:03 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:29 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-06 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:38 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 15:18 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 19:21 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 13:07 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 12:24 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:17 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:19 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 17:22 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 14:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 21:22 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@gmail.com> - 2017-04-30 18:30 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:34 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:49 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:40 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:15 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:28 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:43 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:51 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 23:55 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:08 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:17 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:33 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:46 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 17:52 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:02 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 18:23 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 01:47 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 08:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 09:53 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:30 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 10:44 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 17:54 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 12:05 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 19:37 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2017-05-06 22:09 +0200
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Charlie <pipedroner3@kismet45.org> - 2017-05-06 16:19 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> - 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2017-04-30 20:42 -0400
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-05-01 00:57 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-04-23 00:48 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:16 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> - 2017-04-23 00:18 +0000
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-04-22 17:22 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-02 22:07 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 14:17 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 01:02 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-02 18:55 -0700
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> - 2017-05-03 15:17 +0100
Re: Smokers are smarter, I say. Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2017-05-03 10:03 -0700
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 13:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5337EAE.A3D0E%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632140 |
On 5/6/17, 1:09 PM, in article oelaba$n9c$1@dont-email.me, "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote: ... >>> The fact you want a picture of the center of gravity of a set of objects >>> shows you have NO clue what we are even talking about. Seriously, wow. >> >> I knew you didn't have one, dummy. >> So, it's still the Sun. > > Stop replying to the lying imbecile > > Snit Michael Glasser simply wants to set up a new "Snit circus", and you > have fallen for it > > He does not care that the barycenter of the whole solar system lies within > the sun, It sometimes does. It sometimes does not. Your claim is simply not correct. > and so all planets orbit the sun no matter how much he tries to > twist the reality The sun and the planets orbit the barycenter. To say the planets orbit the sun is good enough for first or second grade but past that you should gain a better understanding. > Even if Jupiter would circle the sun at Mercuries orbit, the barycenter of > those two most massive objects of the solar system still lies *way* inside > the sun When Jupiter and Saturn are on the same side of the sun the barycenter is outside of the sun. This happens in a roughly 11 year cycle and may be tied to the sunspot cycle of the sun. > Stop replying to that dishonest twit. He is wrong, and will stay wrong as > long as there are new suns born Ah, you just want to troll me. Ok, added your post to the list of trolling posts where people are breaking the pact to not share their fantasies about me. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 13:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5337E09.A3D0C%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632137 |
On 5/6/17, 12:37 PM, in article oel8l7$dqk$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang"
<spring@sprung.invalid> wrote:
...
>>>> I understand the barycenter.
>>>
>>> Got a picture of it?
>>> An actual picture, not a diagram.
>>> If you do, then I'll agree the Earth orbits that :)
>>
>> The fact you want a picture of the center of gravity of a set of objects
>> shows you have NO clue what we are even talking about. Seriously, wow.
>
> I knew you didn't have one, dummy.
> So, it's still the Sun.
Ah, name calling as you ask for an actual picture (not a diagram) of the
center of gravity (the barycenter). That is like asking for an actual
picture (not a diagram) of an orbit.
It is a nonsense request that just shows ignorance. The closest you can come
is to show a time lapse or an image that depicts such. I *did* show you a
diagram of that and it did not help you.
At that point it comes to you taking responsibility for understanding the
concept. And it is not that hard of one... already showed you this NASA
article which seems directed at grade school kids (and goes over your head):
<https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter>
Then there is this:
<https://youtu.be/1iSR3Yw6FXo>
That goes into more detail. Turns out the next time the center of the sun
will be almost exactly at the center of the solar system will be in 2169. In
any case, the way Saturn and Jupiter line up may be tied to the 11 year
cycle of sun spots, something I had not considered or heard about... so
thank you for the discussion.
And with this I am not sure what else to add. I can repost the same links
and explanations but I suspect you will remain ignorant and unable to
understand.
...
--
Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot
use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow
superior by attacking the messenger.
They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again.
<https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 20:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oelbl0$op0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632142 |
On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:20:09 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 5/6/17, 12:37 PM, in article oel8l7$dqk$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > > ... >>>>> I understand the barycenter. >>>> >>>> Got a picture of it? >>>> An actual picture, not a diagram. >>>> If you do, then I'll agree the Earth orbits that :) >>> >>> The fact you want a picture of the center of gravity of a set of objects >>> shows you have NO clue what we are even talking about. Seriously, wow. >> >> I knew you didn't have one, dummy. >> So, it's still the Sun. > > Ah, name calling as you ask for an actual picture (not a diagram) of the > center of gravity (the barycenter). That is like asking for an actual > picture (not a diagram) of an orbit. Yep. > > It is a nonsense request that just shows ignorance. The closest you can come > is to show a time lapse or an image that depicts such. I *did* show you a > diagram of that and it did not help you. > It did not persuade me. Planets orbit the Sun :) > At that point it comes to you taking responsibility for understanding the > concept. And it is not that hard of one... already showed you this NASA > article which seems directed at grade school kids (and goes over your head): > > <https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter> > Yeah, I've seen it. > Then there is this: > > <https://youtu.be/1iSR3Yw6FXo> > > That goes into more detail. Turns out the next time the center of the sun > will be almost exactly at the center of the solar system will be in 2169. In > any case, the way Saturn and Jupiter line up may be tied to the 11 year > cycle of sun spots, something I had not considered or heard about... so > thank you for the discussion. > Nothing wrong with discussing stuff. > And with this I am not sure what else to add. I can repost the same links > and explanations but I suspect you will remain ignorant and unable to > understand. What? ;) Yeah, it's run it's course. Though endless debate can be fun. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D53382C7.A3D20%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632144 |
On 5/6/17, 1:28 PM, in article oelbl0$op0$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:20:09 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 5/6/17, 12:37 PM, in article oel8l7$dqk$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >> ... >>>>>> I understand the barycenter. >>>>> >>>>> Got a picture of it? >>>>> An actual picture, not a diagram. >>>>> If you do, then I'll agree the Earth orbits that :) >>>> >>>> The fact you want a picture of the center of gravity of a set of objects >>>> shows you have NO clue what we are even talking about. Seriously, wow. >>> >>> I knew you didn't have one, dummy. >>> So, it's still the Sun. >> >> Ah, name calling as you ask for an actual picture (not a diagram) of the >> center of gravity (the barycenter). That is like asking for an actual >> picture (not a diagram) of an orbit. > > Yep. In other words your request shows ignorance of the topic. >> It is a nonsense request that just shows ignorance. The closest you can come >> is to show a time lapse or an image that depicts such. I *did* show you a >> diagram of that and it did not help you. > > It did not persuade me. > Planets orbit the Sun :) From a first or second grade level of understanding, sure. But we have covered this. When Saturn and Jupiter are on the same side of the sun it is not even in the area of the sun. >> At that point it comes to you taking responsibility for understanding the >> concept. And it is not that hard of one... already showed you this NASA >> article which seems directed at grade school kids (and goes over your head): >> >> <https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter> > > Yeah, I've seen it. But shown no understanding. Sure. >> Then there is this: >> >> <https://youtu.be/1iSR3Yw6FXo> >> >> That goes into more detail. Turns out the next time the center of the sun >> will be almost exactly at the center of the solar system will be in 2169. In >> any case, the way Saturn and Jupiter line up may be tied to the 11 year >> cycle of sun spots, something I had not considered or heard about... so >> thank you for the discussion. > > Nothing wrong with discussing stuff. Agreed. >> And with this I am not sure what else to add. I can repost the same links >> and explanations but I suspect you will remain ignorant and unable to >> understand. > > What? ;) Do you need an explanation? :) > Yeah, it's run it's course. Can you post an actual picture (not a diagram) of this course? > Though endless debate can be fun. No they can't. :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 22:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oelida$g7m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #632146 |
On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:40:23 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 5/6/17, 1:28 PM, in article oelbl0$op0$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" ><spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > >> On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:20:09 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 5/6/17, 12:37 PM, in article oel8l7$dqk$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>> >>> ... >>>>>>> I understand the barycenter. >>>>>> >>>>>> Got a picture of it? >>>>>> An actual picture, not a diagram. >>>>>> If you do, then I'll agree the Earth orbits that :) >>>>> >>>>> The fact you want a picture of the center of gravity of a set of objects >>>>> shows you have NO clue what we are even talking about. Seriously, wow. >>>> >>>> I knew you didn't have one, dummy. >>>> So, it's still the Sun. >>> >>> Ah, name calling as you ask for an actual picture (not a diagram) of the >>> center of gravity (the barycenter). That is like asking for an actual >>> picture (not a diagram) of an orbit. >> >> Yep. > > In other words your request shows ignorance of the topic. So, with this new found expertise, you'll be moving out of the chicken coupe? :) > >>> It is a nonsense request that just shows ignorance. The closest you can come >>> is to show a time lapse or an image that depicts such. I *did* show you a >>> diagram of that and it did not help you. >> >> It did not persuade me. >> Planets orbit the Sun :) > > From a first or second grade level of understanding, sure. But we have > covered this. > I doubt second graders know what an orbit is. > When Saturn and Jupiter are on the same side of the sun it is not even in > the area of the sun. > Wrong. >>> At that point it comes to you taking responsibility for understanding the >>> concept. And it is not that hard of one... already showed you this NASA >>> article which seems directed at grade school kids (and goes over your head): >>> >>> <https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter> >> >> Yeah, I've seen it. > > But shown no understanding. Sure. > Things have been a mess since Pluto left. >>> Then there is this: >>> >>> <https://youtu.be/1iSR3Yw6FXo> >>> >>> That goes into more detail. Turns out the next time the center of the sun >>> will be almost exactly at the center of the solar system will be in 2169. In >>> any case, the way Saturn and Jupiter line up may be tied to the 11 year >>> cycle of sun spots, something I had not considered or heard about... so >>> thank you for the discussion. >> >> Nothing wrong with discussing stuff. > > Agreed. > Yup. >>> And with this I am not sure what else to add. I can repost the same links >>> and explanations but I suspect you will remain ignorant and unable to >>> understand. >> >> What? ;) > > Do you need an explanation? :) > No, I know what what means. >> Yeah, it's run it's course. > > Can you post an actual picture (not a diagram) of this course? > https://giphy.com/gifs/arguing-A6eeii8JprHKo >> Though endless debate can be fun. > > No they can't. :) > Know they can. -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-06 15:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D533A0D6.A3D4F%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #632168 |
On 5/6/17, 3:23 PM, in article oelida$g7m$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:40:23 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 5/6/17, 1:28 PM, in article oelbl0$op0$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, 06 May 2017 13:20:09 -0700, Snit, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 5/6/17, 12:37 PM, in article oel8l7$dqk$1@dont-email.me, "Sprang" >>>> <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>>>>>> I understand the barycenter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Got a picture of it? >>>>>>> An actual picture, not a diagram. >>>>>>> If you do, then I'll agree the Earth orbits that :) >>>>>> >>>>>> The fact you want a picture of the center of gravity of a set of objects >>>>>> shows you have NO clue what we are even talking about. Seriously, wow. >>>>> >>>>> I knew you didn't have one, dummy. >>>>> So, it's still the Sun. >>>> >>>> Ah, name calling as you ask for an actual picture (not a diagram) of the >>>> center of gravity (the barycenter). That is like asking for an actual >>>> picture (not a diagram) of an orbit. >>> >>> Yep. >> >> In other words your request shows ignorance of the topic. > > So, with this new found expertise, you'll be moving out of the chicken coupe? > :) Don't get the reference but I don't keep up with modern pop references. Did a quick search now and did not find it. I assume you likely meant coop and not coupe, but maybe not? >>>> It is a nonsense request that just shows ignorance. The closest you can >>>> come is to show a time lapse or an image that depicts such. I *did* show >>>> you a diagram of that and it did not help you. >>> >>> It did not persuade me. >>> Planets orbit the Sun :) >> >> From a first or second grade level of understanding, sure. But we have >> covered this. > > I doubt second graders know what an orbit is. They should. I know my kids did at that age. >> When Saturn and Jupiter are on the same side of the sun it is not even in >> the area of the sun. > > Wrong. <https://youtu.be/1iSR3Yw6FXo?t=1m55s> >>>> At that point it comes to you taking responsibility for understanding the >>>> concept. And it is not that hard of one... already showed you this NASA >>>> article which seems directed at grade school kids (and goes over your >>>> head): >>>> >>>> <https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter> >>> >>> Yeah, I've seen it. >> >> But shown no understanding. Sure. > > Things have been a mess since Pluto left. It never left. ... >>> Yeah, it's run it's course. >> >> Can you post an actual picture (not a diagram) of this course? > > https://giphy.com/gifs/arguing-A6eeii8JprHKo :) -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.y0lwp3vfjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631399 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:18:38 +0100, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >> > > Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is > there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you > could have snorkeled in Kansas. I don't care about people stupid enough to live that low down. -- Rule 34: If it exists, there's porn of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 22:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <op.y0lwqy0xjs98qf@red.lan> |
| In reply to | #631399 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:18:38 +0100, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> wrote: > Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >> > > Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is > there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you > could have snorkeled in Kansas. What, you mean non-man-made climate change? That's not allowed! Everything is our fault! -- Streakers beware: Your end is in sight!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-21 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D5475214.A5262%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #634021 |
On 5/21/17, 2:02 PM, in article op.y0lwqy0xjs98qf@red.lan, "James Wilkinson Sword" <imvalid@somewear.com> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:18:38 +0100, Jonathan N. Little <lws4art@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Sprang wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>> wrote this: >>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>> Tell others. >>>> >>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>> >>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> Wear galoshes. >>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>> galoshes. >>> >> >> Except if you employ facts, it would not be 4 inches. The problem is >> there have been times in Earth history were there was no ice and you >> could have snorkeled in Kansas. > > What, you mean non-man-made climate change? That's not allowed! Straw man. > Everything is our fault! Straw man. If you wish to argue against the science at least TRY to understand it first. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DYadnXcbo4jb-5vEnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #631395 |
On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> Sprang wrote: >>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>> Leave for 24 hours. >>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>> the water level is lower. >>> Tell others. >> >> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >> > > If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. > Wear galoshes. > Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. > Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? -- == Later... Ron C --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 15:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BB4F4.A29B3%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631456 |
On 4/30/17, 3:33 PM, in article DYadnXcbo4jb-5vEnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Ron C" <r.capik@verizon.net> wrote: > On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote >> this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >> galoshes. >> > > Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. > Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? A discussion on this can lead to a heated argument. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <DYadnXYbo4jl9ZvEnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #631458 |
On 4/30/2017 6:36 PM, Snit wrote: > On 4/30/17, 3:33 PM, in article > DYadnXcbo4jb-5vEnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Ron C" <r.capik@verizon.net> > wrote: > >> On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote >>> this: >>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>> Tell others. >>>> >>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>> >>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> Wear galoshes. >>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>> galoshes. >>> >> >> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? > > A discussion on this can lead to a heated argument. > Then maybe it will cook the red herring. :-) -- == Later... Ron C --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BBABD.A29D0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631461 |
On 4/30/17, 3:43 PM, in article DYadnXYbo4jl9ZvEnZ2dnUU7-KednZ2d@giganews.com, "Ron C" <r.capik@verizon.net> wrote: > On 4/30/2017 6:36 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 4/30/17, 3:33 PM, in article >> DYadnXcbo4jb-5vEnZ2dnUU7-KfNnZ2d@giganews.com, "Ron C" <r.capik@verizon.net> >> wrote: >> >>> On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>> wrote >>>> this: >>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>>> Tell others. >>>>> >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>> Wear galoshes. >>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>>> galoshes. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >>> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >> >> A discussion on this can lead to a heated argument. >> > Then maybe it will cook the red herring. :-) Seems a bit fishy to me. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5pdj$g01$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631456 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> Sprang wrote: >>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>> the water level is lower. >>>> Tell others. >>> >>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>> >> >> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >> Wear galoshes. >> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >> > > Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. > Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? > Thermal expansion. > -- >== > Later... > Ron C -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 18:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BfydnefYe5Wg9pvEnZ2dnUU7-eOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #631463 |
On 4/30/2017 6:45 PM, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>> Tell others. >>>> >>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>> >>> >>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>> Wear galoshes. >>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >>> >> >> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >> > > Thermal expansion. > OK, follow that thought.... == Later... Ron C --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 22:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5ptv$g01$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631466 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:54:51 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 4/30/2017 6:45 PM, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>> On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>>> Tell others. >>>>> >>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>> Wear galoshes. >>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >>>> >>> >>> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >>> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >>> >> >> Thermal expansion. >> > > OK, follow that thought.... Exploding marshmellows. :) > >== > Later... > Ron C -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ron C <r.capik@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 19:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BZ-dnUyMlMao7ZvEnZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #631467 |
On 4/30/2017 6:53 PM, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:54:51 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/2017 6:45 PM, Sprang wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>>>> Tell others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>> Wear galoshes. >>>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap galoshes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >>>> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >>>> >>> >>> Thermal expansion. >>> >> >> OK, follow that thought.... > > Exploding marshmellows. :) > Good job. Carry on.... == L... RC --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 16:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <D52BBE8C.A29F0%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
| In reply to | #631467 |
On 4/30/17, 3:53 PM, in article oe5ptv$g01$4@dont-email.me, "Sprang" <spring@sprung.invalid> wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:54:51 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: >> On 4/30/2017 6:45 PM, Sprang wrote: >>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: >>>> On 4/30/2017 3:04 PM, Sprang wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 14:56:21 -0400, Jonathan N. Little, after 15 edits, >>>>> wrote this: >>>>>> Sprang wrote: >>>>>>> Fill a glass with ice and water. >>>>>>> Place outside in the sun on a warm day. >>>>>>> Leave for 24 hours. >>>>>>> Return to retrieve glass, notice even with the bugs floating in it, >>>>>>> the water level is lower. >>>>>>> Tell others. >>>>>> >>>>>> I hesitate to introduce facts into this stupid discussion, but yes water >>>>>> is one of those a atypical molecules which expands when transition from >>>>>> liquid to solid. You application here to explain that global warning >>>>>> resulting Arctic and Antarctic ice to melt would not cause cause sea >>>>>> level rise is fundamentally flawed. The reason is that the ice that will >>>>>> melt has a significant portion resting on *land* and not in the water. >>>>>> If the ice sheets melt the melt-water will *not* stay on the land. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If all the ice melts, sea levels will increase 4 inches. >>>>> Wear galoshes. >>>>> Of course, with a measly 0.8 degree increase over a century, get cheap >>>>> galoshes. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >>>> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >>>> >>> >>> Thermal expansion. >>> >> >> OK, follow that thought.... > > Exploding marshmellows. :) That's enough... not a Peep out of you! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-30 20:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Z4vNA.42939$3%2.33388@fx09.iad> |
| In reply to | #631463 |
On 2017-04-30 18:45, Sprang wrote: > On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: [...] >> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >> > > Thermal expansion. I'm sure you have the skills to figure out the effect of thermal expansion on ocean levels. In case you don't have the formulas at your finger tips, here's how to calculate the cubic thermal expansion of the ocean: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/volumetric-temperature-expansion-d_315.html You also need to know the volume of the ocean, and its area: 1.35 billion cubic km 351 million square km You need to figure out: a) how much the ocean would rise with zero increase in surface area; that's simple geometry. b) how much of that rise would be absorbed by increased surface area via flooding of low-lying land; that's trickier, because you have to know the areas of land at, say, 1m intervals, so as to calculate the volume that the flooding ocean water would occupy, etc. I'm sure you can find the data. -- Best, Wolf K https://kirkwood40.blogspot.com "What good is it having lower taxes when you can’t drink the water?”
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sprang <spring@sprung.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-01 00:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oe5v6h$nmg$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #631498 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:13:40 -0400, Wolf K, after 15 edits, wrote this: > On 2017-04-30 18:45, Sprang wrote: >> On Sun, 30 Apr 2017 18:33:39 -0400, Ron C, after 15 edits, wrote this: > [...] >>> Actually the ice melt/sea level rise argument is a bit of a red herring. >>> Here's a hint: how does a thermometer work? >>> >> >> Thermal expansion. > > I'm sure you have the skills to figure out the effect of thermal > expansion on ocean levels. > > In case you don't have the formulas at your finger tips, here's how to > calculate the cubic thermal expansion of the ocean: > > http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/volumetric-temperature-expansion-d_315.html > > You also need to know the volume of the ocean, and its area: > 1.35 billion cubic km > 351 million square km > > You need to figure out: > a) how much the ocean would rise with zero increase in surface area; > that's simple geometry. > b) how much of that rise would be absorbed by increased surface area via > flooding of low-lying land; that's trickier, because you have to know > the areas of land at, say, 1m intervals, so as to calculate the volume > that the flooding ocean water would occupy, etc. I'm sure you can find > the data. > By golly, it will increase by 4 inches. Thanks. :) Now, all the ice needs to melt. How many thousand years do we have to prepar? Got a formula for that? -- SpringSprangSprung
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web