Global Warming is about giving your government more regulatory powerand your eventual enslavment.

On Oct 21, 3:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,

BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 15, 7:02 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Hank Kroll wrote:
My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In that case you wouldn't mind promoting a few supercomputer
simulations.

Isn't it better to check with observations of the real world first?

But go ahead with your simulation if you want. Start on your own laptop
- the laptops of today are very capable machines which have a computing
power clearly exceeding the supercomputers of only a few decades ago. Get
back here when you've got some promising results from your simulation.
Of course that will require that you explain to others exactly what you
simulated and why your results are promising - and that may of course be
an obstacle for you. But if you want others to fund computer time on
today's supercomputers for you, you must be able to motivate them for
doing that.

Good luck!

Considering all the lethal mainstream flack that I have to continually
survive without a stitch of help from others that claim to already
know all there is to know, I'll need that luck.

My skill at motivating others is less than polished, but then your PR
skills are clearly more than sufficient, as are the many wizard skills
of others that are most often on one kind or another of a public
funded existence.

Exactly how brown does my nose have to get?

~ BG

On Oct 21, 12:37*pm, "
wrote:

The end is near, the end is near Dr Malthus -

Nope, the end is never near, but change is near. Change is the one
thing that is true throughout history. And people are always reluctant
to change, especially those who are well off, because they are
comfortable in their present situation and don't want anything to ever
change. The smart ones see change as opportunity, grab onto it,
contribute positively and ultimately profit by it.

Unca Rollo

On Oct 21, 3:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 16, 12:14 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article 6hxJk.334622$TT4.282639@attbi_s22,
Sam Wormley wrote:

Hank Kroll wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would
be of the order of several billion years instead of a mere 105 thousand
years. Which means that not many, if any, revolutions in that orbit
would have been completed during the lifetime so far of the Galaxy.
In addition, that "orbit" would be so easily disturbed by other stars
passing nearby that the stars would most likely be scattered from
one another before even half an orbit would have been completed.

An orbital period of a mere 105 thousand years would require an orbital
velocity of some 100 km/s which is way way beyond escape velocity for
such a system.

Hans Kroll has just revealed his total ignorance in orbital mechanics...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Supposedly our entire galaxy is trekking through the cosmos at 120 km/
s.

Our galaxy is trekking through space much faster than that, relative
to far-away galaxies. But that speed is irrelevant, since it won't
influence the speeds of the stars within our galaxy relative to one
another.

So, what's the big deal about 100 km/s?

The big deal is that we're talkning not about the speed of our etire
galaxy, but the speed of stars within our galaxy relative to one
another.

Suppose you're hit by a car travelling at 50 mph. You would die, or
at least be seriously injured by such a hit. How come? After all
we're all moving with some 500-1000 mph on the surface of the Earth
as the Earth rotates. And in our yearly orbit around the Sun we're
all travelling at some 67,000 mph. We're able to cope with these
huge velocities fine - so why would a car, travelling as slowly as
50 mph as it collided with a person, matter at all?

~ BG

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Considering how interstellar dark matter is not nailed down, how
objectively proof-positive is our distance from Sirius, and thereby
interpreting as to our mutual closing rate of velocity?

~ BG

On Oct 21, 12:24*pm, "
wrote:

GBYD


Potty mouth

On Oct 21, 3:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article ,



BradGuth wrote:
On Oct 16, 9:44 am, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
In article eYIJk.2020$%%2.1278@edtnps82,

Michael Tee wrote:

My book, COSMOLOGICAL ICE AGES explains how the carbon resources were
made. Our sun is in a 105,000-year elliptical orbit around the Procyon
and Sirius star systems.

The observed motions of Sirius and Procyon do not support any notion of
orbital relationship with our sun.

In addition, if the Sun was in such an orbit, the orbital period would

why do you idiots bother with such idiots?

Mostly to try to educate others who may read this and who may be unaware
of this. If the idiot loses his "market" of people who are willing
to believe in him, he may eventually go silent. Perhaps I'm an idiot
too when doing this - but I prefer that over becoming a cynic.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stjarnhimlen dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/

Is this why you and others of your kind wouldn't allow a public owned
supercomputer to run off a few complex simulations?

WHAT ?????????????

Did I ever prohibit anyone to run simulations on a supercomputer?
No I don't think so (if you want to dispute this, please refer to
something where I wanted to prohibit this. You won't find it,
because I never did that).

BTW CPU power is hardly a matter anymore - the average laptop of today
has a CPU power which clearly exceeds the CPU power of the supercomputers
only a few decades ago such as the Cray-1, Cray-XMP, Cray-2 ....
So why don't you go ahead and run whatever complex simulations you
want on your laptop! I don't want to stop you, and even if I wanted
to I would be unable to do so. The only thing which can stop you is
your own lack of knowledge, skill, or motivation to create such a
simulation.

Good luck!

You are aware of the original combined mass of the Sirius star/solar
system?

The original mass hardly matters. What matters if you want our solar
system to orbit Sirius is the current mass of Sirius.

In the beginning when those ice age and subsequent thaw cycles were
more frequent, thereby the original stellar mass certainly does
matter. I think it has a little something to do with the continuing
expansion of the universe, or at least the 225 million year galactic
cycle of the Milky Way, though I could be wrong.

Perhaps it's merely a barycenter issue, so that we only get to within
something under one light year, although 0.086 ly would certainly make
those complex elliptical trek simulations a whole lot more
interesting.

What about the mutual tidal radius loss after Sirius B kind of went
postal on us?

btw, another pesky cosmic question of the day: Where’s the Sirius B
cocoon? (are we not within it?)

~ BG

On Oct 21, 1:06*pm, wrote:
On Oct 21, 12:24*pm, "
wrote:

GBYD

Potty mouth

BTW, aren't you on record as saying the making of your glass is
extremely energy intensive ( so the Chinese can't undercut your
exalted prices since they have to pay the same per kwh )?

Are you thus part of the problem or do you only use glass fired by
wind turbines--or elves on treadmills?.

You Greens are such pompous hypocrites. Give you a few years of Obama
and your costs will go through the roof.

I plan to make a lot of money on the coming inflation which is
unavoidable and just as predictable as the mess we are now in--was 2
years ago.

On Oct 21, 1:20*pm, "
wrote:
On Oct 21, 1:06*pm, wrote:

GBYD

Potty mouth

BTW, aren't you on record as saying the making of your glass is
extremely energy intensive * * ( so the Chinese can't undercut your
exalted prices since they have to pay the same per kwh )?

Are you thus part of the problem or do you only use glass fired by
wind turbines--or elves on treadmills?.

You Greens are such pompous hypocrites. Give you a few years of Obama
and your costs will go through the roof.


80% of our sales are in telescope mountings which don't use glass. For
telescopes, glass itself is a very minor part as far as mass is
concerned. Glass is made with electricity, not oil. Around here our
electricity is mostly nuke and some wind power. Probably in the future
some 20% of the electricity will be generated by wind. In any case,
the amount of glass that I use per year would not fill the back of a
small pickup truck. The yearly consumption of soda pop per person uses
10 times as much glass. Even so, glass is kinda nice since it can be
easily recycled to make new glass.

You are such a child, potty mouth.

Unca Rollo

On Oct 21, 7:38*am, "
wrote:

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

As others have noted, 1850 was around the time of something called the
"Industrial Revolution", when the steam engine had just been invented,
and so people started burning coal to do many different things to a
much greater extent than before.

Of course, energy consumption then wasn't what it is now, so the
effect was weaker. While back then, people did have thermometers and
record the weather, things like tree rings and isotope ratios have
been used in modern studies of past climate as well, and this helps to
avoid errors due to any limitations on older means of measurement.

John Savard

On Oct 21, 1:55*pm, Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 21, 7:38*am, "
wrote:

Exactly how was man causing global warming in the 1850ties? Millions
of cars running around?

As others have noted, 1850 was around the time of something called the
"Industrial Revolution", when the steam engine had just been invented,
and so people started burning coal to do many different things to a
much greater extent than before.

Of course, energy consumption then wasn't what it is now, so the
effect was weaker. While back then, people did have thermometers and
record the weather, things like tree rings and isotope ratios have
been used in modern studies of past climate as well, and this helps to
avoid errors due to any limitations on older means of measurement.

Ah, here we a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

discusses the matter quite well. Apparently they don't need to use
stuff like tree rings except for times before 1850, so I wasn't quite
right.

John Savard

On Oct 21, 1:46*pm, wrote:


Potty mouth

BTW, aren't you on record as saying the making of your glass is
extremely energy intensive * * ( so the Chinese can't undercut your
exalted prices since they have to pay the same per kwh )?

Are you thus part of the problem or do you only use glass fired by
wind turbines--or elves on treadmills?.

You Greens are such pompous hypocrites. Give you a few years of Obama
and your costs will go through the roof.

80% of our sales are in telescope mountings which don't use glass. For
telescopes, glass itself is a very minor part as far as mass is
concerned. Glass is made with electricity, not oil. Around here our
electricity is mostly nuke and some wind power. Probably in the future
some 20% of the electricity will be generated by wind. In any case,
the amount of glass that I use per year would not fill the back of a
small pickup truck. The yearly consumption of soda pop per person uses
10 times as much glass. Even so, glass is kinda nice since it can be
easily recycled to make new glass.

You are such a child, potty mouth.

Unca Rollo

Ah, so the Chinese are indeed coming after you; contrary to your
argument of a year ago, it seems electricity costs are not a
significant factor in your--or the Chinese--glass costs.

I know, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, right? Or perhaps
you can't remember your past posts--check the archives.

Potty mouth??? Are you for real??