Pioneer : Anomaly Still Anonymous

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:43:56 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:57:14 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:30:46 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:00:25 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:22:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 09:39:11 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

Retrograde orbits would eventually fall into the sun. Ecliptic orbits
can be any conic section. Non retrograde orbital inclinations will
eventually be drawn into the ecliptic plane.

Pure fantasy. For a start, you should qualify "conic section"
somewhat. I really don't think you should include the bisection of a
cone down the middle, and we still haven't been told what you
understand by the word "retrograde".

Nor have you bothered to enquire of the person who used the term in
this context initially. So much for pure fantasy.

You did say "any" conic section though. Care to qualify that?

You mean do I care to qualify the shape of your hat? Not especially.

So, are you still claiming that an ecliptic orbit can be *any* conic
section?

Have I indicated otherwise?

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:42:47 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:50:35 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:10:58 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:10:23 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
d) Globular clusters are the youngest objects in the galaxy.

Nothing to do with gd.

You do still claim that, then.

Do still claim what?

That. That above. Pay attention.

That what? Nothing to pay attention to.

That globular clusters are the youngest stars in the galaxy.

That globular clusters are the youngest "stars" in the galaxy? I've
been trying to follow your song and dance recital as best I can but
frankly I missed the part where globular clusters suddenly became
stars. Maybe all your whining and hand waving has finally paid off
with some real magic.

You still
claim that. Please don't play the thicko, it doesn't help your case,
such as it still is.

And it sure as hell doesn't seem to have helped your case such as it
isn't that globular clusters suddenly seem to have morphed into stars.

e) Globular clusters have overall angular momentum, without which they
would collapse entirely, and with which they would collapse into
disks.

Nothing to do with gd.

You still appear to claim that too.

Claim what?

That. See above.

That what?

That globular clusters have overall angular momentum, without which
they would collapse entirely, and with which they would collapse into
disks. You still claim that.

Why not since you can't seem to explain in mechanical terms why the
sky doesn't fall in globular clusters?

I expect so. It seems a reasonable metaphor. I noticed on one web site
that they are described as "buzzing like gnats", and that is maybe an
even better simile.

You uncritically expect rather a lot.

The quote referring to the buzzing of gnats is ascribed to Brian Yanny
of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, who even you would have
to admit knows a whole lot about globular clusters.

Except apparently why the sky doesn't fall in them.

If he feels that
comparing globular clusters to the buzzing of gnats is a suitable
simile, then that's good enough for me.

Er yes. I rather expect poetry is somewhat preferable to mechanics to
explain why the sky doesn't fall in globular clusters.

The simulations do look
remarkably similar. Strangely, biologists describing swarms of small
invertebrates use words like "cluster" and "globular" too. I have no
problem with that either.

You don't seem to have much of a problem with anything that doesn't
explain the subject under discussion in mechanical terms. But then the
British tend to be terribly vague about things don't they? Bit of a
sticky wicket, what?

I might see what, that various centers of gravity stationary with
respect to one another fail to collapse under the influence of
universal gravitation?

Who mentioned "stationary wrt to one another?". What makes you think
stars in globular clusters are stationary? They are far from that.

Did I say "stars", sport? Pay attention for a change.

Ah, I see. You really do need to learn some Newtonian stuff.

Oh do tell. I can hardly wait for this.

The stars
move, and interact with each other gravitationally.

In technical terms you mean they "zoom" "whizz" and "buzz".

You cannot produce
various "centres of gravity" out of a hat as it were, and then treat
them as objects in their own right.

I don't have to. Newton did that for us.

Well, you just did, I know, but
you shouldn't.

Of course I shouldn't. Rather discomfits the colonies I expect.

You also roundly mocked Craig for his use of the word "zooming" in
describing the motion of stars. He was trying to explain to you, in
words of very few syllables, what happens to stars in a globular
cluster. He was under a certain amount of pressure. You had previously
called him an idiot and an asshole, remember?

And I still do.

There you go, you see? The "discussion" will not progress very far
while you persist in throwing childish insults about.

So? The discussion will not proceed very far so long as I don't accede
to your childish demands on how the discussion should proceed when
those completely ignorant of the technical Newtonian lexicon insist on
using terms like "whizzing" and "zooming" to describe centers of
gravity which are roughly stationary with respect to one another in
globular clusters but nonetheless refuse to collapse gravitationally?

"Roughly stationary" now. How fast do they in fact move? Do you
actually know?

I know that gc's are said to possess little net angular momentum.

The stars in globular clusters are far from stationary. They, er,
whizz about like anything.

Kinda like your arguments, what?

It takes as little as a million years or so
for a star to go all the way from one side to the other.

A lot longer than it takes you I'll bet.

It would be
*highly* unlikely that you could find any two stars

"Any two stars"? What are you, a complete imbecile? Last time I
checked globular clusters contained a lot more than two stars. So why
limit yourself to two stars? Maybe because you'd like to make a
totally trivial and completely irrelevant argument? Why not include
all stars in globular cluster in all combinations?

that had a
stationary common centre of gravity,

Then the cluster itself has to have net angular momentum.

and even if you did, it would
have no special significance.

Of course it wouldn't. It just might explain in mechanical terms
however why the sky should fall in globular clusters with little or no
angular momentum despite all the "buzzing" "whizzing" and "zooming"
stars in them. I realize this is a trifle advanced for all the
superior Newtonians we find in this group but there it is.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:32:48 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:43:56 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
So, are you still claiming that an ecliptic orbit can be *any* conic
section?

Have I indicated otherwise?

Including a straight bisection down the middle?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 19 Aug 2006 02:39:16 -0700, "Aladar"
wrote:


Steve Willner wrote:
", it
isn't at all clear what the galaxy "building blocks" might have been.
Furthermore, the existence of very massive galaxies so quickly after
the Big Bang tells us that hierarchical assembly probably isn't the
whole story. Somehow those galaxies had to form very quickly indeed,
and it isn't obvious that hierarchical assembly can do the job.
(Mind you, these massive galaxies are rather rare, so unusual or
unlikely events to assemble them suffice.)"

Now, in my understanding there is infinite time to get the hierarchical
assembly to work.
These observations prove that the photon energy loss is the cause of
Hubble redshift and not a Doppler effect, there was no big bang.

The problem is that you don't advance any mechanical insight to
explain what the Hubble redshift is. The Hubble redshift is certainly
a doppler effect at least as far as the observer is concerned. Where
and how the redshift originates in mechanical terms however is still
problematic.

Will the academia ever recognize the obvious?!

Apparently not if you can't explain it to them in mechanical terms.
They'll just continue to believe in what's obvious to them.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On 18 Aug 2006 17:49:33 -0700, "Aladar"
wrote:


Craig Markwardt wrote:
"Aladar" writes:
Just to bring some perspective...

Your "perspective" is irrelevant since it is not substantiated by
anything other than your erroneous opinions.


2. A.S. inquired about the anomaly reported that in the Doppler
shift of the returned from the spacecraft signal there is an excess
drift toward lower than expected frequency values, or it is an
excess redshift, showing an elevated recession velocity over the
real recession.

This claim is erroneous, as shown by both the Anderson et al and
Markwardt analyses.

3. This excess redshift is represented on Figure 8. on page 36 in a
cumulative form. X-axis is showing the accumulated distance [in
light days] and on the Y-axis the corresponding excess redshift
values could be read with negative sign, in Doppler velocity
form. The down slope of curve indicates an increasing with the
distance excess redshift trend.

Again erroneous (c.f. Markwardt gr-qc/0208046 Figure 1).

In the event JPL or others dispute the validity of the above
statements, I request full unrestricted and funded access to the
related data for independent evaluation.

Lame. You have access to the data with as much funding for the project
as I did (i.e. none), and you just punted..

On my part the only change is :Hd=4.115 Gy as per
http://stolmarphysics.com/

Interesting. Let's review.

[ Stolmar, April 2001: ]
: I add the repeated challenge here also: if you can show that the
: Hd photon half-life constant is Hd18.525 billion years or Hd
: 18.523 billion years, I also will shut-up.

[ Stolmar, May 2001: ]
: I made my choice: Hd = 9.262 billion years is the correct value
: for the photon's energy half-life. ..

[ Stolmar, today: ]
: On my part the only change is :Hd=4.115 Gy as per

Why haven't you honored your April 2001 promise?

CM

It would be much less fun.

I just follow the footsteps of some famous guys...

Also, I listen to others when they point out the mistakes I make.

Now, it would be nice if the cosmognomia also would listen about the
idiotic mistake they made: namely to identify the Hubble redshift with
the Doppler effect. There is no basis for that!

Oh nonsense. I can't imagine there is anyone who argues the Hubble
redshift is not a doppler effect of some kind. The only question is
what kind? And so far you haven't adduced any kind of mechanical
evidence one way or the other. What you suggest regarding the big bang
could be true but nothing you say demonstrates it one way or the
other.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:04:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:32:48 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:43:56 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
So, are you still claiming that an ecliptic orbit can be *any* conic
section?

Have I indicated otherwise?

Including a straight bisection down the middle?

You mean a triangular orbit? Why not. Sounds like fun. It's at least
as good as a figure eight orbit. I mean as long as we're dealing with
"buzzing" "whizzing" and "zooming" stars in poetic terms instead of
scientific terms.

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:02:34 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:42:47 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:50:35 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:10:58 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:10:23 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
d) Globular clusters are the youngest objects in the galaxy.

Nothing to do with gd.

You do still claim that, then.

Do still claim what?

That. That above. Pay attention.

That what? Nothing to pay attention to.

That globular clusters are the youngest stars in the galaxy.

That globular clusters are the youngest "stars" in the galaxy?

Yes, that'll do. What are globular clusters made of? What are the
objects that are so globularly clustered? Stop prevaricating and
answer the question.

I've
been trying to follow your song and dance recital as best I can but
frankly I missed the part where globular clusters suddenly became
stars.

What on earth (sorry, bad phraseology) are they made of then?

But then the
British tend to be terribly vague about things don't they? Bit of a
sticky wicket, what?

Bad metaphor, evidently you don't understand the term.

The stars
move, and interact with each other gravitationally.

In technical terms you mean they "zoom" "whizz" and "buzz".

If you wish.

Well, you just did, I know, but
you shouldn't.

Of course I shouldn't. Rather discomfits the colonies I expect.

The stars in globular clusters are far from stationary. They, er,
whizz about like anything.

Kinda like your arguments, what?

It takes as little as a million years or so
for a star to go all the way from one side to the other.

A lot longer than it takes you I'll bet.


It would be
*highly* unlikely that you could find any two stars

"Any two stars"? What are you, a complete imbecile? Last time I
checked globular clusters contained a lot more than two stars. So why
limit yourself to two stars? Maybe because you'd like to make a
totally trivial and completely irrelevant argument? Why not include
all stars in globular cluster in all combinations?

Because all the stars combined have *one* centre of gravity, that just
*is*, and doesn't interact with anything. You constantly talk about
"various centres of gravity", that allegedly interact with each other
in some strange way as if they were objects in their own right.

that had a
stationary common centre of gravity,

Then the cluster itself has to have net angular momentum.

and even if you did, it would
have no special significance.

Of course it wouldn't. It just might explain in mechanical terms
however why the sky should fall in globular clusters with little or no
angular momentum despite all the "buzzing" "whizzing" and "zooming"
stars in them. I realize this is a trifle advanced for all the
superior Newtonians we find in this group but there it is.

OK, that's enough. You can do nothing but troll, carp, criticize and
mock now, because you have been comprehensively shown to be wrong on
*all* counts. Discussion over, as far as I am concerned.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:20:36 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:04:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:32:48 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:43:56 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
So, are you still claiming that an ecliptic orbit can be *any* conic
section?

Have I indicated otherwise?

Including a straight bisection down the middle?

You mean a triangular orbit? Why not. Sounds like fun. It's at least
as good as a figure eight orbit. I mean as long as we're dealing with
"buzzing" "whizzing" and "zooming" stars in poetic terms instead of
scientific terms.

Idiot.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:24:56 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:20:36 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 18:04:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 09:32:48 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:43:56 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
So, are you still claiming that an ecliptic orbit can be *any* conic
section?

Have I indicated otherwise?

Including a straight bisection down the middle?

You mean a triangular orbit? Why not. Sounds like fun. It's at least
as good as a figure eight orbit. I mean as long as we're dealing with
"buzzing" "whizzing" and "zooming" stars in poetic terms instead of
scientific terms.

Idiot.

You say what amounts to a triangular orbit and then call me an idiot?

Lester Zick
~v~~

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 19:24:13 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 10:02:34 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 21:42:47 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:50:35 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 21:10:58 +0100, Ben Newsam
wrote:
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 12:10:23 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:
d) Globular clusters are the youngest objects in the galaxy.

Nothing to do with gd.

You do still claim that, then.

Do still claim what?

That. That above. Pay attention.

That what? Nothing to pay attention to.

That globular clusters are the youngest stars in the galaxy.

That globular clusters are the youngest "stars" in the galaxy?

Yes, that'll do. What are globular clusters made of? What are the
objects that are so globularly clustered? Stop prevaricating and
answer the question.

What question. I can't very well be expected to make sense of a
question which confuses stars with clusters of stars even though it
seems to make sense to you. Of course where you're concerned
"whizzing" and "zooming" are considered technical terms.

I've
been trying to follow your song and dance recital as best I can but
frankly I missed the part where globular clusters suddenly became
stars.

What on earth (sorry, bad phraseology) are they made of then?

What are what made of? You seem to have some considerable problem
dropping context.

But then the
British tend to be terribly vague about things don't they? Bit of a
sticky wicket, what?

Bad metaphor, evidently you don't understand the term.

"Star" is a bad metaphor? For what pray tell, old sod?

The stars
move, and interact with each other gravitationally.

In technical terms you mean they "zoom" "whizz" and "buzz".

If you wish.

You mean you wish.

Well, you just did, I know, but
you shouldn't.

Of course I shouldn't. Rather discomfits the colonies I expect.

The stars in globular clusters are far from stationary. They, er,
whizz about like anything.

Kinda like your arguments, what?

It takes as little as a million years or so
for a star to go all the way from one side to the other.

A lot longer than it takes you I'll bet.


It would be
*highly* unlikely that you could find any two stars

"Any two stars"? What are you, a complete imbecile? Last time I
checked globular clusters contained a lot more than two stars. So why
limit yourself to two stars? Maybe because you'd like to make a
totally trivial and completely irrelevant argument? Why not include
all stars in globular cluster in all combinations?

Because all the stars combined have *one* centre of gravity,

Well I think you'll find stars have considerably more than one center
of gravity, sport. Each star has its own center of gravity and all of
them have centers of gravity in various combinations including but not
limited to "all".

that just
*is*,

And do molecules within stars have "just" one center of gravity,
sport, that for the star as a whole, or do they have various centers
of gravity for all combinations of molecules?

and doesn't interact with anything. You constantly talk about
"various centres of gravity", that allegedly interact with each other
in some strange way as if they were objects in their own right.

Oh right, I'm sorry, I forgot that you're the technical whiz-ard when
it comes to Newtonian mechanics.

that had a
stationary common centre of gravity,

Then the cluster itself has to have net angular momentum.

and even if you did, it would
have no special significance.

Of course it wouldn't. It just might explain in mechanical terms
however why the sky should fall in globular clusters with little or no
angular momentum despite all the "buzzing" "whizzing" and "zooming"
stars in them. I realize this is a trifle advanced for all the
superior Newtonians we find in this group but there it is.

OK, that's enough. You can do nothing but troll, carp, criticize and
mock now, because you have been comprehensively shown to be wrong on
*all* counts. Discussion over, as far as I am concerned.

Yes well I believe you've sworn off the conversation before so perhaps
now you can do your poetic "whizzing" and "zooming" somewhere less
offensive to Newtonian celestial mechanics and just "buzz" off.

Lester Zick
~v~~