Flyby appears successful

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:13:18 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:56:05 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Planets are not like stars. Stars stay in the same place all the time..


No they don't. They're just a lot farther away.


You ever see a star wander? I didn't think so!


You have any clue of the huge velocities that stars move at? I didn't
think so!

So you are asserting you've seen a star move without instruments? You're insane!


Fred you're such a fool. lol.


Mookie, you're such an ignorant tat. lol.

No human has ever seen a star move without instruments. That's the point. You're the one not getting the point. So, of course you cannot own your ignorance so you must attack the person trying to educate you on this point which you've totally missed!


For humans, situated in the Earth moon system, the stars don't move in any way that's detectible without instruments. The planets on the other hand move through the sky against the backdrop of apparently non-moving stars. Which is why they're called wanderers.


Mookie - living in the 1700s...

Older than that! The meaning of "planet," in ancient times, the time of the Greeks as "aster planets," or the "wandering star."

That's where the word planet came from! These stars wandered in the sky, and were not fixed like the other stars. Of course you've turned this simple statement into a STUPID argument, because you're an idiot.



--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson


Of course, wander has another meaning! Wanderer also describes a type of personality! Which is the appeal of space travel to certain numbers of us;

https://vimeo.com/108650530

Which makes any sort of activity in the frontier, politically relevant! Whether true or not.

https://goo.gl/WRWQ2o

Le 7/18/15 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 7/17/15 10:00 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 7/17/15 8:21 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...

BTW, during yesterday's press conference, I noticed the NASA scientists
used "small planet" in reference to Pluto.

Has Pluto regained its planet status ? (appartently it is a tad bigger
than originally thought)



No, it's still a dwarf planet.

Which is not as big a deal as people seem to care.
That term is only of importance to scientists who study it.

call it a planet if you want. Or a teapot. Just don't call it Goofy.

It's important because Pluto is very likely a member of the Kuiper belt,
which means it is just one of very many dwarf planets that orbit the
sun.


So if I redefine 'Kuiper Belt' to extend inward to the asteroid belt,
Jupiter is now a "dwarf planet". Pluto (and Charon) are very dense
for Kuiper objects. I'm going with 'planet'.

As for the 'has cleared its orbit by gravitational influence'
requirement that they like to fail Pluto on, what about all the
Earth-crossing asteroids. Hey, EARTH isn't a planet!

And if you compare the combined mass of all those Earth-crossing
asteroids to the mass of Earth you get a *tiny* fraction. On the other
hand if you compare the combined mass of all the other Kuiper belt
objects to the mass of Pluto you get something much greater than one.


Which is irrelevant if you look at the volume enclosed by each.


Even if you multiply the Earth-crossing asteroids mass to Earth mass by
100,000 to take into account the difference in volumes you still have
something *much* less than one.


Those are some interesting statements, Alain. I'd be interested in
what masses and volumes you're using, since we don't actually know the
total mass in the Kuiper belt to within an order of magnitude and the
volume is preposterously large compared to the volume you can be using
for 'Earth crossers'. And since Pluto/Charon is a Neptune crosser,
that means Neptune isn't a planet, either, since it hasn't cleared
Pluto/Charon from it's orbit.

I stated that 100,000 times Earth-crossing asteroids mass is much less
than Earth's mass off the top of my head. I have now searched for total
mass of Earth-crossers, I have not found anything close to precise data
but from what I found it isn't obvious that my statement is true, and it
probably is false. Nonetheless, even if it isn't by a factor of 100,000
Earth does dominate its space, and Pluto doesn't.

As you say Pluto is a Neptune crosser but it is one of very few Kuiper
belt objects to be a Neptune crosser. And there is a reason for that.
You can't have much of them. Pluto has a stable orbit while being a
Neptune crosser because it is in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. If it
wasn't in a resonance orbit while being a Neptune crosser it would
eventually come close to Neptune at which point Neptune would change
Pluto's orbit. If Pluto should go close enough, Neptune would either
eject Pluto from the solar system or lower its perigee, giving a chance
to Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus to eject it. That's what happens when you
have an object which dominates it orbital region, it ejects the other
stuff in the region. Pluto didn't do that. And should Haumea or Makemake
ever happen to pass very close to Pluto, it isn't obvious who would end
up being ejected. If Pluto should pass very close to Neptune, it isn't
Neptune that would be ejected.


Alain Fournier

Resources available:

Ceres masses 2.3e21 kg and it 1/3 the mass of all asteroids.

So, the total of all asteroids is 6.9e21 kg.

The mass of the Earth is 5970.0e21 kg.

The mass of the Kuiper belt is 180,000e21 kg.

The mass of the Sun is 19,890,000e21 kg.

The mass of the heavy elements in the sun is 400,000e21 kg.

Energy leaves the sun at a rate of 4.2e9 kg/sec. (0.00132e21 kg/yr)

Mass of the biosphere 1.84e15 kg. (0.00000184e21 kg)

Now each square meter of Earth's surface requires 11.2 billion tons of material to support it. A space colony requires only 10 tons per square meter to support it.

Energy produced by Sun in watts: 384.2e24 Watts

Energy intercepted by Earth in watts: 0.000000174e24 Watts.

The sun produces 2.2 billion times as much energy as the Earth intercepts.

The mass of the Kuiper belt manufactured into space colonies produces enough colonies to intercept ALL the light from the sun, and increase the mass of the biosphere by 2.2 billion times.

A star system with 15 billion billion persons is possible by 3900 AD.

Well before this time we must leave the solar system in numbers sufficient to maintain populations.

This requires for each person 880.5 tons of positronium in the first burn, and 89.5 tons in the second burn, to propel 10 tons (per person) to any point beyond the solar system at 98% the speed of light.

At 95% the speed of light time dilates by a factor of 5. (Which slows reproduction by at least the same rate, population growth slows even more with suspended animation)

980 tons of antimatter per person and the sun converting mass to energy at 4.2 million tons per second, we have the resources locally for dispatching no more than 132.4 billion people per year from the solar system with positronium rockets using local resources.

With a growth rate of 1.14% per year and this cap, we cannot allow our population to grow beyond 11.3 trillion. This will occur at present rates of growth in 2674 AD.

It will take something on the order of 100,000 years to cross the Milky Way and inhabit all 400 billion stars. This will occur 8685 AD ship time. So, somewhere around 110,000 AD.

Travelling to the supermassive black hole at the centre of our galaxy, it is likely possible to travel through time by navigating through the ergosphere.

http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/reso...n-time-travel/

In that case, the 4.4 trillion trillion people that fill the galaxy can travel anywhere arriving at any time.

So, 160,000 billion billion star systems spanning 100 billion years with say 1,000 years per person, and 11 trillion persons per star, 1.76 trillion trillion trillion persons. It takes about 46 billion years to traverse the cosmos (notwithstanding the fact that we can travel back in time by orbiting a black hole according to some).

This assumes the Big Bang is correct.

If Fred Hoyle is correct and the universe is infinitely old and of infinite extent, then the speed of light combined with time travel, explains where all the ETs are, and what our ultimate future in space might be. One where humans are spread across the cosmos sparsely because the cosmos is expanding faster than we ever could expand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnMt6QYry2U



On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:55:34 PM UTC+12, Alain Fournier wrote:
Le 7/18/15 3:09 PM, Fred J. McCall a écrit :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 7/17/15 10:00 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Alain Fournier wrote:

On 7/17/15 8:21 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,
says...

"JF Mezei" wrote in message
web.com...

BTW, during yesterday's press conference, I noticed the NASA scientists
used "small planet" in reference to Pluto.

Has Pluto regained its planet status ? (appartently it is a tad bigger
than originally thought)



No, it's still a dwarf planet.

Which is not as big a deal as people seem to care.
That term is only of importance to scientists who study it.

call it a planet if you want. Or a teapot. Just don't call it Goofy.

It's important because Pluto is very likely a member of the Kuiper belt,
which means it is just one of very many dwarf planets that orbit the
sun.


So if I redefine 'Kuiper Belt' to extend inward to the asteroid belt,
Jupiter is now a "dwarf planet". Pluto (and Charon) are very dense
for Kuiper objects. I'm going with 'planet'.

As for the 'has cleared its orbit by gravitational influence'
requirement that they like to fail Pluto on, what about all the
Earth-crossing asteroids. Hey, EARTH isn't a planet!

And if you compare the combined mass of all those Earth-crossing
asteroids to the mass of Earth you get a *tiny* fraction. On the other
hand if you compare the combined mass of all the other Kuiper belt
objects to the mass of Pluto you get something much greater than one..


Which is irrelevant if you look at the volume enclosed by each.


Even if you multiply the Earth-crossing asteroids mass to Earth mass by
100,000 to take into account the difference in volumes you still have
something *much* less than one.


Those are some interesting statements, Alain. I'd be interested in
what masses and volumes you're using, since we don't actually know the
total mass in the Kuiper belt to within an order of magnitude and the
volume is preposterously large compared to the volume you can be using
for 'Earth crossers'. And since Pluto/Charon is a Neptune crosser,
that means Neptune isn't a planet, either, since it hasn't cleared
Pluto/Charon from it's orbit.

I stated that 100,000 times Earth-crossing asteroids mass is much less
than Earth's mass off the top of my head. I have now searched for total
mass of Earth-crossers, I have not found anything close to precise data
but from what I found it isn't obvious that my statement is true, and it
probably is false. Nonetheless, even if it isn't by a factor of 100,000
Earth does dominate its space, and Pluto doesn't.

As you say Pluto is a Neptune crosser but it is one of very few Kuiper
belt objects to be a Neptune crosser. And there is a reason for that.
You can't have much of them. Pluto has a stable orbit while being a
Neptune crosser because it is in a 3:2 resonance with Neptune. If it
wasn't in a resonance orbit while being a Neptune crosser it would
eventually come close to Neptune at which point Neptune would change
Pluto's orbit. If Pluto should go close enough, Neptune would either
eject Pluto from the solar system or lower its perigee, giving a chance
to Jupiter, Saturn or Uranus to eject it. That's what happens when you
have an object which dominates it orbital region, it ejects the other
stuff in the region. Pluto didn't do that. And should Haumea or Makemake
ever happen to pass very close to Pluto, it isn't obvious who would end
up being ejected. If Pluto should pass very close to Neptune, it isn't
Neptune that would be ejected.


Alain Fournier

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 3:37:32 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Saturday, July 18, 2015 at 12:13:18 AM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:

On Friday, July 17, 2015 at 3:56:05 PM UTC+12, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:


Planets are not like stars. Stars stay in the same place all the time.


No they don't. They're just a lot farther away.


You ever see a star wander? I didn't think so!


You have any clue of the huge velocities that stars move at? I didn't
think so!

So you are asserting you've seen a star move without instruments? You're insane!


And here we go.

We knew that when you replied foolishly to my observation that stars remain stationary and planets wander, hence their name. Taking my comment totally out of context so you could have a pointless argument over nothing of substance.

Mookie makes something up

I wish you'd quit using racist remarks to refer to me. The fact is, I didn't make anything up. As usual you mistook my meaning. The bald fact is that stars are considered stationary in all practical senses while planets move in the sky, hence their name - planet is the Greek word for wanderer.

that he claims the other
person said and then he acts as if they actually said it.

I repeat again, I said stars don't move in the sky as far as anyone who observes the sky with their naked eye can tell, while planets wander - hence their name.

Yeah, one of us is insane, Mook.

You are. It is well known by nearly everyone that the term planet comes from the Greek word for wanderer. While stars as far as naked eye observations go, remain fixed.

Your problem is that that one of us
is the one who hears **** from the voices in his head and then acts as
if someone else said it.

You're projecting again. You're the only one who hears voices.


You said stars don't move.

They don't as far as naked eye observation goes.

I say they do.

No, you are making an ass of yourself by saying something that has no relevance to what I was saying. You know it is of no relevance. You say it only to rant and rave about how superior you are.

One of us can be right and
the facts are on my side.

Context my friend context. I believe you know very well what I was talking about, and you like nothing better but to be an asshole lunatic about it just so you can feel better about yourself.

So you are asserting that you've seen a planet move without
instruments?

The instrument I'm talking about is a telescope and heliometer. Yes, you can go back night after night and see that a planet moves against the fixed stars. This is why people called those moving stars planets. From the Greek word wanderer.

It wasn't until the 1860s that Bessel equipped with telescope and heliometer, and a clear idea of the Earth's position in the solar system, that the stellar parallax to a star was measured. That was 61 Cygni.

It was only after decades of careful observations that astronomers measured the movement of the fixed stars. In more recent years careful observations of light curves and slight doppler shifts due to movements around a star's centre of gravity, we can detect planets around other stars.

Despite these movements, the term 'fixed stars' are still used by astronomers and navigators alike.



Fred you're such a fool. lol.


Mookie, you're such an ignorant tat. lol.

No human has ever seen a star move without instruments. That's the
point. You're the one not getting the point. So, of course you
cannot own your ignorance so you must attack the person trying to
educate you on this point which you've totally missed!


But that's not what you SAID, Mookie.

Its not what you think I said. That's the point. You KNOW what I meant and chose to take a meaning that has nothing to do with what I said, and everything to do with your need to beat me up verbally.

You said stars don't move,

That's right, fixed stars, in the sense that astronomers use the word. Everyone knows what we means by the fixed stars. Everyone knows that planets move rapidly across the sky throughout the year. Everyone knows this is how planets got their names. They are wanderers in a field of fixed stars.

not
that you can't see them move without instruments.

You chose to take a meaning that allows you to denigrate me and to let you feel better about yourself, you miserable excuse for a human being.

You know, you can't
actually see planets move without instruments, either. So even your
changed claim is wrong.

Again, you pick and choose what you ascribe to what is said, knowing that nothing of the kind was actually said, merely to allow you to say terrible things of others just so you can feel better about yourself.

You are ****ing insane you miserable jerk.



For humans, situated in the Earth moon system, the stars don't move in any way that's detectible without instruments. The planets on the other hand move through the sky against the backdrop of apparently non-moving stars. Which is why they're called wanderers.


Mookie - living in the 1700s...

Older than that! The meaning of "planet," in ancient times, the time of the Greeks as "aster planets," or the "wandering star."

That's where the word planet came from! These stars wandered in the sky, and were not fixed like the other stars. Of course you've turned this simple statement into a STUPID argument, because you're an idiot.


No, Mook.

Yes you did. You think you can reframe anything anyone says so that you can attack them and feel just for a moment a superiority that you don't really possess.

I merely noted that YOU made a STUPID statement.

I know! It makes you feel wonderful inside to find reasons to say that to people. Fact is, it is YOU who misread what I said, so that you can continue believing this about others, just so you can feel a sense of superiority you don't have.

Now you
want to revise and extend your remarks

No, you idiot, I am responding to you ABUSIVE INTERPRETATION by addressing the STUPID REMARKS YOU MADE! You ****ing moron.

so that you're merely
bloviating

Look anyone who is accused of being a fool a liar and worse, based on a misreading of what they said, feels compelled to explain how their accuser has misread what was actually said. Again, I am responding to your ABUSE. You get a hard on thinking that this proves your superior in some way.

about something that everyone has known since they were
small children. Equally stupid.

Nonsense. Everyone knows that word planets is Greek for wanderer because they wander relative to the fixed stars. You have wilfully misread this in a way that allows you verbally abuse me without cause, just so you can feel superior in a way you are not.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

That would be you asshole.