What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than us none the less)

On Sep 9, 7:08 pm, John Griffin wrote:
wrote:
There you go again, excluding those regular laws of physics
and ignoring the best available science in order to suit your
perverted mindset, as well as acting exactly like another very
bad Yid or Jewboy. Shame on you and your silly naysayism
towards all that's off- world.

If you could think of something to use them on/for/against, you
would have said so.

Now that's silly, isn't it. Are you still trying to prove that you're
the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology? You've got my vote.
- Brad Guth -

BradGuth wrote:

On Sep 9, 7:08 pm, John Griffin
wrote:
wrote:
There you go again, excluding those regular laws of physics
and ignoring the best available science in order to suit
your perverted mindset, as well as acting exactly like
another very bad Yid or Jewboy. Shame on you and your
silly naysayism towards all that's off- world.

If you could think of something to use them on/for/against,
you would have said so.

Now that's silly, isn't it.

Nope.

Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology. Maybe
you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid stuff come from,
anyway? For all you know, I might be a Jap...or a Guido...or a
Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a Frog...? Just curious, as long as
you don't accuse me of being one of The Pervert Mohammed's
mind****ed drones.

On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology. Maybe
you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid stuff come from,
anyway? For all you know, I might be a Jap...or a Guido...or a
Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a Frog...? Just curious, as long as
you don't accuse me of being one of The Pervert Mohammed's
mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the original
topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in charge of most
everything that counts, or having just enough insider controls for
making their one and only interpretation of any external notions, that
could impact their Old Testament in a negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than
us none the less)" has nothing to do with whatever honest Zions, Jews
or Yids. However, was this topic simply too complex for your
naysayism upon all that's off-world, especially if there's any remote
chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial limited
mindset; Have you ever contributed a positive/constructive word on
behalf of ETs?
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 10, 4:32 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology. Maybe
you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid stuff come from,
anyway? For all you know, I might be a Jap...or a Guido...or a
Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a Frog...? Just curious, as long as
you don't accuse me of being one of The Pervert Mohammed's
mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the original
topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in charge of most
everything that counts, or having just enough insider controls for
making their one and only interpretation of any external notions, that
could impact their Old Testament in a negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than
us none the less)" has nothing to do with whatever honest Zions, Jews
or Yids. However, was this topic simply too complex for your
naysayism upon all that's off-world, especially if there's any remote
chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial limited
mindset; Have you ever contributed a positive/constructive word on
behalf of ETs?
- Brad Guth -

I would have finished posting a well thought out piece that
contemplated the idea of "Do you think that the presence of
ET's here on earth means that some in the human race are
being exploited for the purpose of advancing another species?",
but became "locked out" due to a virus sensed by the local
library's software...

If we are being exploited, do you think that it is:

a) So that all humans should be exterminated, or

b) In order to "correct" our technological direction as part
of a larger plan in the evolution of our species???

The final thought was that we have become confused by the
materialism of our forefathers, in the sense that an oil-based
economy was the result of the early industrial age; we have
lost the ability to become "sensitized" to adapt to a newer
inheritance that would enable us to reinvent the industry...

American

On Sep 11, 9:32 am, American wrote:
On Sep 10, 4:32 pm, BradGuth wrote:


On Sep 10, 9:38 am, John Griffin wrote:

BradGuth wrote:
Are you still trying to prove
that you're the head Yid in charge of usenet ****ology?
You've got my vote. - Brad Guth -

You can't seem to decide between ****ology and buttology. Maybe
you oughta say butt****ology. Where'd this Yid stuff come from,
anyway? For all you know, I might be a Jap...or a Guido...or a
Pepperbelly...or a Kraut, a Frog...? Just curious, as long as
you don't accuse me of being one of The Pervert Mohammed's
mind****ed drones.

Thus far you haven't contributed squat on behalf of the original
topic.

For your dumbfounded information, Yids are either in charge of most
everything that counts, or having just enough insider controls for
making their one and only interpretation of any external notions, that
could impact their Old Testament in a negative light, go away.

This honest topic of "What's wrong with there being ETs (smarter than
us none the less)" has nothing to do with whatever honest Zions, Jews
or Yids. However, was this topic simply too complex for your
naysayism upon all that's off-world, especially if there's any remote
chance of ETI?

Speaking of those usenet bigots as having a terrestrial limited
mindset; Have you ever contributed a positive/constructive word on
behalf of ETs?
- Brad Guth -

I would have finished posting a well thought out piece that
contemplated the idea of "Do you think that the presence of
ET's here on earth means that some in the human race are
being exploited for the purpose of advancing another species?",
but became "locked out" due to a virus sensed by the local
library's software...

It's those pesky MIB/Yids doing their best infomercial damage-control
at serving you another dose of their nifty spermware/****ware that's
intended to terminate whatever PC. I believe you can thank the likes
of GOOGLE/NOVA for some of that nasty stuff.


If we are being exploited, do you think that it is:

a) So that all humans should be exterminated, or

b) In order to "correct" our technological direction as part
of a larger plan in the evolution of our species???

I hope to God it's b), as otherwise we're summarily screwed, and then
some.

Secondly, I do not believe planet Earth is representing any cosmic
holy grail worth of rare elements or energy resources, not to mention
having become rather badly infested with the skewed DNA worth of
humanity hasn't exactly made the situation of being ET friendly or
that of our environment any better off.

We tend to put the most wise and intelligent of folks on a stick, and
without a speck of remorse to boot.


The final thought was that we have become confused by the
materialism of our forefathers, in the sense that an oil-based
economy was the result of the early industrial age; we have
lost the ability to become "sensitized" to adapt to a newer
inheritance that would enable us to reinvent the industry...

We've become best at reinventing ways of poking at one another until
the likes of our resident warlord causes the unfortunate fiasco of
9/11, and then we go right back into an all out war against those that
either don't fit the American mold or are simply not our kind of
minion worthy team player.
- Brad Guth -

Just because Venus is somewhat brown dwarf like hot and nasty, isn't
actually all that technically insurmountable, that is unless you're
one of those not quite as smart as a hot rock.

It seems to be the usual topic/author stocking case, whereas the likes
of "jacob navia" and gauntlet of others spewing their faith-based
infomercial physics and science that excludes whatever rocks their
good ship LOLLIPOP, insisting that their all-or-nothing interpretation
which suits whatever faith-based swarm mindset and thereby creation-
only as well as Earth-only crapolla analogy, is supposedly all there
is to behold. Why on Earth can't we have both, the random cosmic
happenstance and later having intelligent design coming in for the do-
everything terraforming effort, that's ultimately responsible for
ending us up in the horrific terrestrial mess that we're in. I for
one would seriously like to associate with and thus blame some weird
or perverted God (especially of one holding offshore bank accounts and
shooting friends in the face) for all of this mess, wouldn't you!

topic: Spent Stars--Cosmic Background of 5K = ?e?? years
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...2cee6511ad960b
Clearly once upon a time (according to our terrestrial all-knowing
wizards of that all-inclusive BB) most everything was star like, as in
extremely hot and nasty as all get out. I'd say for the first billion
years you'd be hard pressed to find much of anything that wasn't
either a star or that of a black hole containing whatever potential of
taking or giving birth to other stars.

As to exactly how many billions of years old this universe actually
is, I do not believe it's recorded down in any terrestrial stone
tablets or within whatever Dead Sea scrolls, nor has the regular laws
of physics come up with a viable game plan that's other than being the
usual hocus-pocus status quo (aka cover thy butt) approved. Perhaps
this is a bigger than BB problem, especially since any form of
revisionism is simply not allowed to stand, even as an honest rant.

I'd actually buy into the latest cycle or mutation of our local
universe as being worth 13.7 billion years. But, since that +/-
whatever age doesn't tell us the average density of a spent star, so
what?

Wouldn't it be a good thing to know what an old dark brown or nearly
black star is worth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
"Typical atmospheres of known brown dwarfs range in temperature from
2200 down to 750 K (Burrows et al. 2001)." This puts Venus just below
the thermal realm of a brown dwarf or spent star.

Venus w/o moon is very much alive and well worth our exploring, as
offering a nifty wealth of planetology that's either newer than Earth
or representing that of a cosmic version of physics that doesn't play
fair or much less by the rules. Either Venus is a somewhat dull brown
dwarf of a spent star, or it's a somewhat newish planet that arrived
into our solar system not so terribly long ago, as perhaps packing and/
or dragging along an icy Selene as becoming our proto-moon that may
have required some degree of lithobraking/(glancing encounter) in
order to stick around (sort of speak).
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 11, 9:14 pm, BradGuth wrote:
Just because Venus is somewhat brown dwarf like hot and nasty, isn't
actually all that technically insurmountable, that is unless you're
one of those not quite as smart as a hot rock.

It seems to be the usual topic/author stocking case, whereas the likes
of "jacob navia" and gauntlet of others spewing their faith-based
infomercial physics and science that excludes whatever rocks their
good ship LOLLIPOP, insisting that their all-or-nothing interpretation
which suits whatever faith-based swarm mindset and thereby creation-
only as well as Earth-only crapolla analogy, is supposedly all there
is to behold. Why on Earth can't we have both, the random cosmic
happenstance and later having intelligent design coming in for the do-
everything terraforming effort, that's ultimately responsible for
ending us up in the horrific terrestrial mess that we're in. I for
one would seriously like to associate with and thus blame some weird
or perverted God (especially of one holding offshore bank accounts and
shooting friends in the face) for all of this mess, wouldn't you!

topic: Spent Stars--Cosmic Background of 5K = ?e?? yearshttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/20818b...
Clearly once upon a time (according to our terrestrial all-knowing
wizards of that all-inclusive BB) most everything was star like, as in
extremely hot and nasty as all get out. I'd say for the first billion
years you'd be hard pressed to find much of anything that wasn't
either a star or that of a black hole containing whatever potential of
taking or giving birth to other stars.

As to exactly how many billions of years old this universe actually
is, I do not believe it's recorded down in any terrestrial stone
tablets or within whatever Dead Sea scrolls, nor has the regular laws
of physics come up with a viable game plan that's other than being the
usual hocus-pocus status quo (aka cover thy butt) approved. Perhaps
this is a bigger than BB problem, especially since any form of
revisionism is simply not allowed to stand, even as an honest rant.

I'd actually buy into the latest cycle or mutation of our local
universe as being worth 13.7 billion years. But, since that +/-
whatever age doesn't tell us the average density of a spent star, so
what?

Wouldn't it be a good thing to know what an old dark brown or nearly
black star is worth?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_dwarf
"Typical atmospheres of known brown dwarfs range in temperature from
2200 down to 750 K (Burrows et al. 2001)." This puts Venus just below
the thermal realm of a brown dwarf or spent star.

Venus w/o moon is very much alive and well worth our exploring, as
offering a nifty wealth of planetology that's either newer than Earth
or representing that of a cosmic version of physics that doesn't play
fair or much less by the rules. Either Venus is a somewhat dull brown
dwarf of a spent star, or it's a somewhat newish planet that arrived
into our solar system not so terribly long ago, as perhaps packing and/
or dragging along an icy Selene as becoming our proto-moon that may
have required some degree of lithobraking/(glancing encounter) in
order to stick around (sort of speak).
- Brad Guth -

Interesting that you would bring up the "billions of years" as
the age of the universe. There is a theory of how TIME ITSELF
has expanded since the creation, so that instead of seeing
redshift, we're looking at the time dilating effect from the
early rapid expansion of spacetime towards the gradual flattening
out, like at the top of a funnel.

The "tired light effect" becomes SIMULATED for relativistic
effects (due to the conservation of energy), but is not represen-
ted by anything (and can't be because of symmetry of g_ik tensor,
e.g. Friedmann). In fact, the frequency of light CHANGES with
increasing distance because of time dilation,

v(r) = v_0 * e**[-(4*pi*G*(rho)/(c**2))**(1/2)]r

which means, esp. to those BB enthusiasts, NO EXPANSION, and a
STATIONARY UNIVERSE of all things. The STATIONARY UNIVERSE
APPEARS AS IF IT IS EXPANDING, BUT IT IS NOT: THE SPEED OF
LIGHT IS ACCELERATING OVER TIME!

I have written a modified version of a red-shifted universe
program that calculates age factors, light travel times, object
distances, hubble constant (then & now), speed, and luminosity
distance that can be viewed at:

http://server6.theimagehosting.com/i...N_Exp_Univ.GIF


Most Particle Physicists have become "locked in" to the belief
of an expanding universe, and even seek particle theory to
justify their reasoning. The expanding universe is a theory
espoused by Professor John Archibald Wheeler, but is rebutted
with Einstein's theory of a non symmetric gik tensor.

Refer to http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/history.htm for details.

***

The aforementioned theory has no reference with current
propulsion technology espoused by NASA, no reference with
any current transportation technology espoused by any
Bureau of Transportation, Interstate, or International
Trade Agreement, no relationship whatsoever with any of
the branches of military or international militaries; no
affiliation with any political party other than the party
of a New Constitution with Sovereignity; no religious
affiliation with any religious organization or group that
has been recognized by any state or nation of states that
grant license to practice religion; and no affiliation
with any name or professional title of industry indicated
or implied herein.


American

On Sep 12, 9:06 am, American wrote:
Interesting that you would bring up the "billions of years" as
the age of the universe. There is a theory of how TIME ITSELF
has expanded since the creation, so that instead of seeing
redshift, we're looking at the time dilating effect from the
early rapid expansion of spacetime towards the gradual flattening
out, like at the top of a funnel.

The "tired light effect" becomes SIMULATED for relativistic
effects (due to the conservation of energy), but is not represen-
ted by anything (and can't be because of symmetry of g_ik tensor,
e.g. Friedmann). In fact, the frequency of light CHANGES with
increasing distance because of time dilation,

v(r) = v_0 * e**[-(4*pi*G*(rho)/(c**2))**(1/2)]r

which means, esp. to those BB enthusiasts, NO EXPANSION, and a
STATIONARY UNIVERSE of all things. The STATIONARY UNIVERSE
APPEARS AS IF IT IS EXPANDING, BUT IT IS NOT: THE SPEED OF
LIGHT IS ACCELERATING OVER TIME!

Sounds way over my poor old dyslexic head, though you could be more
right than others have been giving you credit for the notion that "THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS ACCELERATING OVER TIME".

Does our universe have an outer shell or sphere of photons as an event
horizon?

How much older than 13.7 billion do you think our universe is in human
years as based upon our limited perception of the speed of light, or
otherwise based upon the speed or velocity of light "ACCELERATING OVER
TIME"?

What's the speed of light at the very core of our universe, whereas
supposely there's nothing but a void or perhaps the remains of the
initial black hole?


Most Particle Physicists have become "locked in" to the belief
of an expanding universe, and even seek particle theory to
justify their reasoning. The expanding universe is a theory
espoused by Professor John Archibald Wheeler, but is rebutted
with Einstein's theory of a non symmetric gik tensor.

Refer to http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/history.htm for details.

***

The aforementioned theory has no reference with current
propulsion technology espoused by NASA, no reference with
any current transportation technology espoused by any
Bureau of Transportation, Interstate, or International
Trade Agreement, no relationship whatsoever with any of
the branches of military or international militaries; no
affiliation with any political party other than the party
of a New Constitution with Sovereignity; no religious
affiliation with any religious organization or group that
has been recognized by any state or nation of states that
grant license to practice religion; and no affiliation
with any name or professional title of industry indicated
or implied herein.

In that case your nifty theory that seems perfectly worthy:
http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/history.htm
is more than likely DOA, especially if you're not an Einstein like Yid
in good standing.
- Brad Guth -

On Sep 12, 1:17 pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:06 am, American wrote:





Interesting that you would bring up the "billions of years" as
the age of the universe. There is a theory of how TIME ITSELF
has expanded since the creation, so that instead of seeing
redshift, we're looking at the time dilating effect from the
early rapid expansion of spacetime towards the gradual flattening
out, like at the top of a funnel.

The "tired light effect" becomes SIMULATED for relativistic
effects (due to the conservation of energy), but is not represen-
ted by anything (and can't be because of symmetry of g_ik tensor,
e.g. Friedmann). In fact, the frequency of light CHANGES with
increasing distance because of time dilation,

v(r) = v_0 * e**[-(4*pi*G*(rho)/(c**2))**(1/2)]r

which means, esp. to those BB enthusiasts, NO EXPANSION, and a
STATIONARY UNIVERSE of all things. The STATIONARY UNIVERSE
APPEARS AS IF IT IS EXPANDING, BUT IT IS NOT: THE SPEED OF
LIGHT IS ACCELERATING OVER TIME!

Sounds way over my poor old dyslexic head, though you could be more
right than others have been giving you credit for the notion that "THE
SPEED OF LIGHT IS ACCELERATING OVER TIME".

Does our universe have an outer shell or sphere of photons as an event
horizon?

How much older than 13.7 billion do you think our universe is in human
years as based upon our limited perception of the speed of light, or
otherwise based upon the speed or velocity of light "ACCELERATING OVER
TIME"?

What's the speed of light at the very core of our universe, whereas
supposely there's nothing but a void or perhaps the remains of the
initial black hole?







Most Particle Physicists have become "locked in" to the belief
of an expanding universe, and even seek particle theory to
justify their reasoning. The expanding universe is a theory
espoused by Professor John Archibald Wheeler, but is rebutted
with Einstein's theory of a non symmetric gik tensor.

Refer tohttp://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/history.htmfor details.

***

The aforementioned theory has no reference with current
propulsion technology espoused by NASA, no reference with
any current transportation technology espoused by any
Bureau of Transportation, Interstate, or International
Trade Agreement, no relationship whatsoever with any of
the branches of military or international militaries; no
affiliation with any political party other than the party
of a New Constitution with Sovereignity; no religious
affiliation with any religious organization or group that
has been recognized by any state or nation of states that
grant license to practice religion; and no affiliation
with any name or professional title of industry indicated
or implied herein.

In that case your nifty theory that seems perfectly worthy:http://www.geocities.com/wlodekj/sci/history.htm
is more than likely DOA, especially if you're not an Einstein like Yid
in good standing.
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

- Is this how the earth was created in seven days - because
those not privy to the physics of pre-solar system formation
would have no idea of the billions of years leading up to
the Sun's creation:

And this is the law and the course of the sun, and his
return as often as he returns sixty times and rises, i.e.
the great luminary which is named the sun, for ever and ever.
And that which (thus) rises is the great luminary, and is
so named according to its appearance, according as the Lord
commanded. As he rises, so he sets and decreases not, and
rests not, but runs day and night, and his light is
sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards
size they are both equal.

(The Book of Enoch, Chapter 72, v. 35 - 37)

Notice the "sevenfold" brighter of the sun to the moon,
meaning it takes the light of seven moons to equal the
brightness of the sun, possibly referring to creating
the earth in "seven moon days", which, according to the
position of each "moon day", would have to equal seven
years, since the exact position of the moon has
to repeat itself once a year.

Since it takes an average of seven years for each cell to
become replaced, a new creation exists once the whole
being becomes regenerated. IMO, this description was what
was meant by "The earh was created in seven days".

We were created in the image of an inhabitant that was
meant to populate this corner of the galaxy because of the
type of regeneration we are environmentally used to;
without a G2V sun, chances are that our frail DNA might
require some modification - but a question remains - Why
do some of the aliens not look like us at all? Answer:
Perhaps THEIR DNA has adapted to a different solar
environment - amounting to the huge eyes, frail bodies, etc.

A time traveller from the past might have a tendency to
"glow" a bit if they were travelling to/from a galactic
reference frame (i.e.,see previous program w.r.t.the "Coma
Cluster") with a slower light speed. By the same token,
it may be part of the "master plan" by the Elohim to seed
a modified species of human in different parts of the
UNIVERSE (notice I didn't say "galaxy" because a galactic
"boundary" would also limit the ability to adapt the
designer species genetically).

Apparently, there are those who continue to think that
"they are it", despite all the best plans that a blood
sacrifice prepared to offer.

Rather than continuing with a faithful exploration,as
well as expansion towards those extrasolar G2V earth-
like environments, most of those George Soros clones
would rather condemn any soldier fit to battle the
enemies of their liberally-perceived "expansionist"
than admit that the universe was (and is) a much larger
place to inhabit.


American

On Sep 12, 1:41 pm, American wrote:
- Is this how the earth was created in seven days - because
those not privy to the physics of pre-solar system formation
would have no idea of the billions of years leading up to
the Sun's creation:

And this is the law and the course of the sun, and his
return as often as he returns sixty times and rises, i.e.
the great luminary which is named the sun, for ever and ever.
And that which (thus) rises is the great luminary, and is
so named according to its appearance, according as the Lord
commanded. As he rises, so he sets and decreases not, and
rests not, but runs day and night, and his light is
sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards
size they are both equal.

(The Book of Enoch, Chapter 72, v. 35 - 37)

Notice the "sevenfold" brighter of the sun to the moon,
meaning it takes the light of seven moons to equal the
brightness of the sun, possibly referring to creating
the earth in "seven moon days", which, according to the
position of each "moon day", would have to equal seven
years, since the exact position of the moon has
to repeat itself once a year.

1/7 = 14.3% albedo, of which could have been the earthshine extra
illuminated case with so much of Earth having been icy and/or frosted
over at the time.


Since it takes an average of seven years for each cell to
become replaced, a new creation exists once the whole
being becomes regenerated. IMO, this description was what
was meant by "The earh was created in seven days".

We were created in the image of an inhabitant that was
meant to populate this corner of the galaxy because of the
type of regeneration we are environmentally used to;
without a G2V sun, chances are that our frail DNA might
require some modification - but a question remains - Why
do some of the aliens not look like us at all? Answer:
Perhaps THEIR DNA has adapted to a different solar
environment - amounting to the huge eyes, frail bodies, etc.

Them grays could also be ET androids w/o DNA.

Venusians might be somewhat exoskeletal.


A time traveller from the past might have a tendency to
"glow" a bit if they were travelling to/from a galactic
reference frame (i.e.,see previous program w.r.t.the "Coma
Cluster") with a slower light speed. By the same token,
it may be part of the "master plan" by the Elohim to seed
a modified species of human in different parts of the
UNIVERSE (notice I didn't say "galaxy" because a galactic
"boundary" would also limit the ability to adapt the
designer species genetically).

Apparently, there are those who continue to think that
"they are it", despite all the best plans that a blood
sacrifice prepared to offer.

Rather than continuing with a faithful exploration, as
well as expansion towards those extrasolar G2V earth-
like environments, most of those George Soros clones
would rather condemn any soldier fit to battle the
enemies of their liberally-perceived "expansionist"
than admit that the universe was (and is) a much larger
place to inhabit.

Screw the universe, as just our own galaxy is more than impressive
enough.

It's also looking as though red dwarfs could make for a rather good
solar sustained life, especially if that life were limited to the
frail DNA likes of us humans. However, a Venus like planet that's so
well protected by its robust atmosphere could manage quite nicely if
parked a little further away from the likes of Sirius B.

Galaxies and the Expanding Universe / Structure of Milky Way
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/obj...objectid=36827
Just one of many complex though otherwise good efforts for sharing the
most accurate of 2D animations on behalf of depicting our local
stellar proper motions, that's entirely relative as to our Sol that
not worth 0.0000001% (a billionth) of what's otherwise every bit as
good or better for having hosted their own locally evolved intelligent
life, getting especially interesting if such evolution of human
intelligence only takes at most a few million years under the right
conditions, as that's hardly anything in cosmic time.

The Geneva-Copenhagen survey of the Solar neighbourhood, by Nordström
et al., as having been further improved by Hipparcos data:
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?optio... d=42&lang=en

More than a few interesting sets of new and improved stellar 3D maps:
The Universe within 12.5 and 20 Light Years
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/12lys.html
http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/20lys.html
- Brad Guth -