|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 23, 6:36*am, (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote:
AA *I would hive remembered Gallilio. *My brain keeps telling me his name began with a "C" * He was living around the 1850s I think he lived in England *I never heard of Gallilio hunting for Neptune.. *AA while at the library see when Uranus was discovered? * TreBert Uranius was discovered on March 13, 1781 by the great astronomer Sir William Herschel of England. It is technically visible to a sharp naked eye on a clear night, but had gone unnoticed by the ancients. Double-A |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
... On Feb 23, 7:09 am, "Painius" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message... ... What's the current 105~110 thousand year wobble of our solar system related to? That's one i haven't heard of, Brad. Do you have a reference to share that i can read? That's why I was asking, since you and others of your all-knowing kind that insist upon obfuscating whenever possible in order to exclude the massive and nearby Sirius star/solar system that we're headed towards and used to be worth 7~9 solar masses, and to otherwise exclude our using public owned supercomputers for orbital simulations of such potential stellar motions. Therefore, what else have we in the local stellar area that's offering ~105,000 year stellar motion cycle, that offers the required mass, energy outflux and desirable spectrum for having kept our solar system and our local environment so into its tidal radius grip? Are you going to suggest that Earth was at multiple times overpopulated with arrogant, greedy and corrupt humans that were sufficiently energy inefficient and polluting in order to accommodate each and every ice age thaw? Are you going to suggest that our orbit varies its radius by +/- 2% on a 105,000 some odd year cycle? Are you going to otherwise suggest that our sun periodically cycles and gradually becomes extra active every 105,000 some odd years? Are you also going to keep suggesting that nothing of rogue planets or moons ever gets acquired into our solar system, or into any other stellar/solar system? Obviously you are a mainstream status quo insider of superior obfuscation and denial, along with all the usual ulterior motives and some kind of hidden agendas, as otherwise you would not be so into obfuscating and otherwise you'd be diligently working on our side. ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Brad, i wasn't obfuscating or trying to be all knowing. I was just asking you where you had heard or read that our Solar system experiences a wobbling cycle that has a period of 105 to 110 thousand years. There is no reason that i can see for you to be rude to me. If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. Or if you want to continue to be secretive, to obfuscate and to seem all knowing, that's okay too. You must really dislike yourself a lot! There's no reason to, you know. There is much to like about you. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "A neurosis is a secret that you don't know you are keeping." Kenneth Tynan P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net http://TheInternetStory.painellsworth.net |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 23, 12:05*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message... ... On Feb 23, 7:09 am, "Painius" wrote: "BradGuth" wrote in message... .... What's the current 105~110 thousand year wobble of our solar system related to? That's one i haven't heard of, Brad. Do you have a reference to share that i can read? That's why I was asking, since you and others of your all-knowing kind that insist upon obfuscating whenever possible in order to exclude the massive and nearby Sirius star/solar system that we're headed towards and used to be worth 7~9 solar masses, and to otherwise exclude our using public owned supercomputers for orbital simulations of such potential stellar motions. *Therefore, what else have we in the local stellar area that's offering ~105,000 year stellar motion cycle, that offers the required mass, energy outflux and desirable spectrum for having kept our solar system and our local environment so into its tidal radius grip? Are you going to suggest that Earth was at multiple times overpopulated with arrogant, greedy and corrupt humans that were sufficiently energy inefficient and polluting in order to accommodate each and every ice age thaw? Are you going to suggest that our orbit varies its radius by +/- 2% on a 105,000 some odd year cycle? Are you going to otherwise suggest that our sun periodically cycles and gradually becomes extra active every 105,000 some odd years? Are you also going to keep suggesting that nothing of rogue planets or moons ever gets acquired into our solar system, or into any other stellar/solar system? Obviously you are a mainstream status quo insider of superior obfuscation and denial, along with all the usual ulterior motives and some kind of hidden agendas, as otherwise you would not be so into obfuscating and otherwise you'd be diligently working on our side. *~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet” Brad, i wasn't obfuscating or trying to be all knowing. *I was just asking you where you had heard or read that our Solar system experiences a wobbling cycle that has a period of 105 to 110 thousand years. *There is no reason that i can see for you to be rude to me. *If you don't want to answer the question, just say so. *Or if you want to continue to be secretive, to obfuscate and to seem all knowing, that's okay too. You must really dislike yourself a lot! *There's no reason to, you know. *There is much to like about you. You know darn good and well what I think has to do with our cycles of ice ages and subsequent thaws, so don't even bother playing dumb. The same question applies, of which you've elected to turn around making little old me the bad guy, as though I'm supposed to know everything in a purely objective matter of fact kind of way none the less, just like you and others of your kind did each and every time there's any chance of us outsiders rocking that mainstream good ship LOLLIPOP of yours. Since there's nothing remotely as close to the mass, spectrum of energy and as nearby as the 3.5 solar all-inclusive mass of Sirius, that was not so long ago worth 7 to 9 solar masses, is what to me represents our most likely stellar motion relationship that's in charge of such dynamic terrestrial cycles. But since you've continually excluded Sirius means that yourself and others of your kind must have some other likely stellar candidates. So, why don't you share and share alike, or is that kind of swag or best educated guess still asking too much? What if the Sirius B hydrogen and helium flashover had taken place place just 11,721 years ago, and its IR thermal affects reaching us by 11,711 years ago? Or, what if an icy Selene with an albedo of 0.85 arrived just 11,711 years ago? What caused the massive south pole crater on Selene? and where exactly is that other item matching up with the same kind of impact? ~ BG |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
Double -A Galllio died in 1543 and that is over 200 years before Uranus.
So you can see he did not have Neptune on his mind. But like when you have a person's name and f0rgot it You can drive yourself crazy,and for me its a very short drive TreBert |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
From Painius, replying to 'BG':
I was just asking you where you had heard or read that our Solar system experiences a wobbling cycle that has a period of 105 to 110 thousand years. I think he's referrin' to the presumed "oscillation" of the solar system's pathway above and below the galactic plane, theorized also to trigger mass extinctions on a regular basis. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 23, 2:37*pm, (oldcoot) wrote:
From Painius, replying to 'BG': I was just asking you where you had heard or read that our Solar system experiences a wobbling cycle that has a period of 105 to 110 thousand years. I think he's referrin' to the presumed "oscillation" of the solar system's pathway above and below the galactic plane, *theorized also to trigger mass extinctions on a regular basis. * * That's a whole lot closer and at least worth considering, but what about Sirius ABC? What if the Sirius B hydrogen and helium flashover had taken place place just 11,721 years ago, and its IR thermal affects reaching us by 11,711 years ago? Or, what if an icy Selene with an albedo of 0.85 arrived just 11,711 years ago? What sort of encounter caused the massive south pole crater on Selene? and where exactly is that other item matching up with the same kind of impact? ~ BG |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 23, 2:37*pm, (oldcoot) wrote:
From Painius, replying to 'BG': I was just asking you where you had heard or read that our Solar system experiences a wobbling cycle that has a period of 105 to 110 thousand years. I think he's referrin' to the presumed "oscillation" of the solar system's pathway above and below the galactic plane, *theorized also to trigger mass extinctions on a regular basis. * * Why are all the public owned supercomputers and their orbital simulators officially taboo? ~ BG |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
"oldcoot" wrote in message...
... From Painius, replying to 'BG': I was just asking you where you had heard or read that our Solar system experiences a wobbling cycle that has a period of 105 to 110 thousand years. I think he's referrin' to the presumed "oscillation" of the solar system's pathway above and below the galactic plane, theorized also to trigger mass extinctions on a regular basis. Possibly, but that's only supposed to happen 2.7 times per galactic year (~225 - 250 million Earth years)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Loc...hin_the_galaxy If one divides 225 by 2.7, it means that the Sun and Solar system oscillate above and below the galactic plane with a period of about 83.3 million years--much longer than Brad's period of 105 to 110 thousand years. So i think he's referring to the minor ice ages that have taken place during the Pleistocene period. Apparently, he believes that close passages of Sol and Sirius may have caused these ice ages and deposited such things as the Moon and Venus in our Solar system. Since he does not appear to understand orbital dynamics any better than i do, he doesn't accept the explanation given by a poster to sci.astro several weeks ago, to wit... The blue-shifted radial velocity between Sol and Sirius can be plugged into an orbital-dynamics formula, which shows without a doubt that Sirius cannot possibly be in any kind of orbital relationship with the Sun. Being a lover of math, i tend to go with this reality. YMMV happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Convinced myself, I seek not to convince." E. A. Poe P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net http://TheInternetStory.painellsworth.net |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
Whad-dever.
Still looks like teamwork to me, especially when one considers that, while the calculating astronomers, Le Verrier and Adams, are given the "credit" for the discovery of planet Neptune, many of the others, whom you call "actual discoverers" of various planets and other Solar system objects, have also been given honorable mention in several historical texts. And all of these great astronomers had "gofers", such as those with "junior author status", at their sides to help with the more mundane duties of astronomy. You're just being argumentative on this issue. Or *maybe*... Maybe *you* are still at issue with something in your past that is the root cause of your "denial"? hth-lmfaao! "Saul Levy" wrote in message... ... There were no teams, Paine! I used to be one of those and discoveries were NOT left for me to find. My ex-boss at Kitt Peak was very nice and fair and gave me junior author status on all of our papers. Many astronomers to this day hate to give full credit for such things. The actual discoverers were AT DIFFERENT OBSERVATORIES from where the calculations were made. Often in DIFFERENT COUNTRIES! Your TEAMS are ROMANTIC NONSENSE! Saul Levy On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:29:29 GMT, "Painius" wrote: "Saul Levy" wrote in message... . .. Not quite correct, Paine! There were NO TEAMS back then. Both Le Verrier and Adams spread the word about their calculations and OTHER ASTRONOMERS did the searching for Neptune. And i consider that teamwork, Saul. Besides, didn't those astronomers back then have assistants and "go fers" and such? people to do much of the legwork, footwork, etc? happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S.: "Convinced myself, I seek not to convince." E. A. Poe P.P.S.: http://Astronomy.painellsworth.net http://PoisonFalls.painellsworth.net http://TheInternetStory.painellsworth.net |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
What if (on Sun Wobble) + Uranius
On Feb 27, 1:55*pm, "Painius" wrote:
Whad-dever. Still looks like teamwork to me, especially when one considers that, while the calculating astronomers, Le Verrier and Adams, are given the "credit" for the discovery of planet Neptune, many of the others, whom you call "actual discoverers" of various planets and other Solar system objects, have also been given honorable mention in several historical texts. *And all of these great astronomers had "gofers", such as those with "junior author status", at their sides to help with the more mundane duties of astronomy. You're just being argumentative on this issue. *Or *maybe*... Maybe *you* are still at issue with something in your past that is the root cause of your "denial"? *hth-lmfaao! "Saul Levy" wrote in message... ... There were no teams, Paine! I used to be one of those and discoveries were NOT left for me to find. *My ex-boss at Kitt Peak was very nice and fair and gave me junior author status on all of our papers. *Many astronomers to this day hate to give full credit for such things. The actual discoverers were AT DIFFERENT OBSERVATORIES from where the calculations were made. *Often in DIFFERENT COUNTRIES! *Your TEAMS are ROMANTIC NONSENSE! Saul Levy On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 18:29:29 GMT, "Painius" wrote: "Saul Levy" wrote in message... . .. Not quite correct, Paine! There were NO TEAMS back then. *Both Le Verrier and Adams spread the word about their calculations and OTHER ASTRONOMERS did the searching for Neptune. And i consider that teamwork, Saul. *Besides, didn't those astronomers back then have assistants and "go fers" and such? people to do much of the legwork, footwork, etc? happy days and... * *starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth And don't forget Foucault. (You know, the pendulum guy?) It was his more accurate calculation of the speed of light that helped his boss Le Verrier at the Paris Observatory confirm a more accurate distance between the Earth and Sun, and consequently increase the acccuracy of the calculations pinpointing Neptune! Now that's teamwork! Double-A |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What if(Wobble Theory Again) | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 27 | January 1st 09 11:40 AM |
Wobble ?????? | G=EMC^2 Glazier[_1_] | Misc | 8 | June 24th 08 09:16 PM |
Wobble and weather | Procellarum | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | June 27th 06 06:52 PM |
The Chandler Wobble | Weatherlawyer | UK Astronomy | 5 | April 3rd 06 03:25 PM |
do galaxies wobble? | Ted Sung | Research | 2 | July 11th 04 07:56 PM |