Star Distances

On 11/7/06 02:43, in article ,
"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:

On 10 Jul 2006 15:09:57 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


I killfiled hurt a long while ago. It is patently obvious he is trolling -

Yet you keep coming back.

Yeah, but he is not reading your posts, you retarded troll dumb****.

He's not exactly doing much to refute the troll allegation is he? Stupid
******* that he is....

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

On 11/7/06 02:44, in article ,
"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:

On 10 Jul 2006 18:18:47 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

Oh I think most of these cosmological speculations ("theories") are
wrong. There most likely are stars that are much closer. Close enough
for us to reach with present technology.


You're a goddamned retard.

"Retard" is being kind too... What the hell are they teaching in science
classes these days?

--

Relf's Law? -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Bull**** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Corollary -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³It approaches the asymptote faster, the more Œpseduos¹ you throw in
your formulas.²
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
³Gravity is one of the four fundamental interactions. The classical
theory of gravity - Einstein's general relativity - is the subject
of this book.² : Hartle/ Gravity pg 1
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orange jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson
why parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:46:17 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
Gave us:




On 11/7/06 02:43, in article ,
"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:

On 10 Jul 2006 15:09:57 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:


I killfiled hurt a long while ago. It is patently obvious he is trolling -

Yet you keep coming back.

Yeah, but he is not reading your posts, you retarded troll dumb****.

He's not exactly doing much to refute the troll allegation is he? Stupid
******* that he is....

Yeah, well... some bunch of *******s called me one once as well,
and now I get it all the ****ing time. Cest la vie...

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 02:47:58 +0100, Phineas T Puddleduck
Gave us:




On 11/7/06 02:44, in article ,
"Roy L. Fuchs" wrote:

On 10 Jul 2006 18:18:47 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

Oh I think most of these cosmological speculations ("theories") are
wrong. There most likely are stars that are much closer. Close enough
for us to reach with present technology.


You're a goddamned retard.

"Retard" is being kind too... What the hell are they teaching in science
classes these days?

I'd be willing to bet that it is NOT "Everything we claim to know
could be 100% wrong." Even if something along those lines were
introduced, it wouldn't encompass "everything". Perhaps "everything
about cosmology" or such, but not basic physics.

Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to shoot pool worth a ****, cause
every shot relies on modern application of inertial physics.

I shoot VERY well, so it can't just be luck. The physics must be
right.

Hurt wrote:
I'm not so sure, he dropped his argument of stellar
distances being wrong when he learned of Hipparcos

Oh I think most of these cosmological speculations ("theories") ...

Ah so you are a troll, or do you just not know
what the word "theory" means in science?

are
wrong. There most likely are stars that are much closer. Close enough
for us to reach with present technology.

Definitely a troll.

Bye.

I am in the UK, Usenet is available worldwide.

Strange though, your question implies [to me] that you were aware of a
post of mine that didn't make it through to Google and which
subsequently I deleted a section of. If it didn't make it through to
Google it didn't make it to Usenet. My traffic often comes under
"attack" whenever I start posting. I'm not sure if it's due to a SYN
flood attack on the Google servers, the routers in-between, or
something entirely different like someone trying to intercept my IP
packets. I could be somebody believes I'm committing "thought
crimes" but legally can't do anything about it.



No. Let's be clear. We were talking of the Pioneer anomaly
which is a linear, constant acceleration relative to the Sun.

The Doppler shift (anomaly) is on average constant therefore linear but
the acceleration may or may not be, linear that is, though constant.
You're very careful with your words George. The Pioneers are on a
trajectory that's arching radially up and out of the ecliptic plane.
The acceleration could be angular, linear, or some combination of both.




of prolonging a pointless argument? That is the
hallmark of a troll and AFAICS you have no real
interest in the subject, you just want to argue,
so I'll leave it there.

Oh, when people start calling me names I know it's because I must be
conveying, borrowing from Al Gore, an inconvenient [to somebody] truth.

Are you trying to evade the issue? Perhaps you're aware that you're
wrong but you don't want to admit it?

No. And I'm not wrong. Somebody left me a science magazine to read;
which I did right before I got online. The article was very thought
provoking. Being alone it's frustrating not to be able to discuss such
thought provoking ideas.



If that large object is nearby, the entire solar system won't experience
the same acceleration from that object! The inverse-square law of
gravity you know.... different parts of the solar system will have
different distances to taht nearby object, AND THE DIFFERENT DISTANCES
WILL BE SIGNIFICANT! "What are we going to use as a reference?" you

It depends on how close and where this "thing" is. If it gets close
enough the situation could be... problematic.

On 11 Jul 2006 09:27:04 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

I'm not sure if it's due to a SYN
flood attack on the Google servers, the routers in-between, or
something entirely different like someone trying to intercept my IP
packets. I could be somebody believes I'm committing "thought
crimes" but legally can't do anything about it.

Maybe it is influence by the hidden by scientists dark star that the
purple sneakered suicide troupe were trying to get to.

Why don't you join them?

On 11 Jul 2006 09:27:04 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

The Doppler shift (anomaly) is on average constant therefore linear but
the acceleration may or may not be, linear that is, though constant.
You're very careful with your words George. The Pioneers are on a
trajectory that's arching radially up and out of the ecliptic plane.
The acceleration could be angular, linear, or some combination of both.


You're an idiot.

On 11 Jul 2006 09:43:43 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

No. And I'm not wrong.

Yes, you are. There is no companion star to the sun, and the stars
that are nearby are EXACTLY where we have determined them to be.

GET A ****ING CLUE, LITTLE BOY.