| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 26 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 56:13:55 |
| Calls: | 632 |
| Files: | 1,187 |
| D/L today: |
27 files (19,977K bytes) |
| Messages: | 179,568 |
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther
Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier
elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the
rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from
the remnants of these older, exploding stars.
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther
Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier
elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the
rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from
the remnants of these older, exploding stars. Therefore, stars existed
long before the Earth, providing the raw materials for its creation.
Jim Pennino <jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
Stars formed from primordial hydrogen and helium shortly after ther
Big Bang, with subsequent generations of stars creating heavier
elements necessary for planet formation. The Earth, along with the
rest of our solar system, formed around 4.54 billion years ago from
the remnants of these older, exploding stars. Therefore, stars existed
long before the Earth, providing the raw materials for its creation.
As a matter of fact it is possible to date both the Earth
and the (ignition of) the Sun reliably, and accurately.
It turns out, as expected, that the sun is somewhat older,
but not by much,
Jan
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first...
and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was
our Sun.
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first...
and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was
our Sun.
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first...
and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was
our Sun.
Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first...
and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was
our Sun.
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 23:39:16 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
So, if you understand 'order of events' , earth came first...
and it already had an ocean Before the first Light. And that Light was
our Sun.
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the
face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in
a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and
Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in Astronomy
does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
On 9/6/2025 1:39 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Freitag000005, 05.09.2025 um 23:31 schrieb Chris M. Thomasson:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in
a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Let say Earth had its _own_ water. Then a comet with frozen ice that contains a special brew, slammed into the very early ocean during a
storm and got zapped with lightning? Life?
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in
a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are
partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and
Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in Astronomy
does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly functions.
Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had
to stay away from that.
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do not belong to the same time.
But that is actually done.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
"...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by
intelligent beings." https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia
It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering.
Le 07/09/2025 |a 10:22, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago
in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some
comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are
partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and
Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in
Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly
functions.
"impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ?
Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had
to stay away from that.
Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by yourself ?
Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 10:22, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago
in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >>>>> comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are
partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth and >>>> Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in
Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly
functions.
"impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ?
Well, in part's I did.
I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to
other papers, too.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.
I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense.
This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists
think about their own profession.
It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters,
where non-initiated are not allowed to participate.
Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I had
to stay away from that.
Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by yourself ? >>
This is certainly a risk.
But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think.
Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 10:22, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago
in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why some >>>>> comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava
contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are
partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth
and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in
Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly
functions.
"impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ?
Well, in part's I did.
I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to
other papers, too.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.
I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense.
This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists
think about their own profession.
It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters,
where non-initiated are not allowed to participate.
Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I
had to stay away from that.
Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by
yourself ?
This is certainly a risk.
But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think.
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
"...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by
intelligent beings."
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia
It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering.
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>>
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
"...and directed panspermia suggesting intentional seeding by
intelligent beings."
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+panspermia+theory&oq=define++Panspermia
It's simple, the earth is a result of prompt engineering.
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>>>
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>>>
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >>>> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >>> aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style? >>
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>>
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>>>>
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>>>>
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >>>>> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >>>> aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style? >>>
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came
first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>>>
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>>>>>
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>>>>>
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >>>>>> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>>>>> means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >>>>> aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came
first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" ><chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>>>>>>
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>>>>>>
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >>>>>>> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>>>>>> means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg", >>>>>> aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came
first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >Afaganastan???
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do not
belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do
not belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
No!
We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and where they
had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as the Sun has been 8
minutes ago. That is a HUGE difference.
The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while the universe isn't.
Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do not belong to
the same time.
so the star will transfer energy to the Sun.
Could we call that an interaction?
Will this star interact with the Sun in a different way
than the Sun will interact with the star?
Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do
not belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
No!
But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away.
The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties
of the star 10000 years ago:
its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star,
or a star approaching the end of its life-
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan
will be ~ 100 million years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun,
its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan
will be ~ 70 billion years.
The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star
10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is
a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be
known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position
will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where
the star is now.
We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago.
We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and where they
had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as the Sun has been 8
minutes ago. That is a HUGE difference.
The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while the universe
isn't.
Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do not belong to
the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
You snipped this:> Photons from the star will be absorbed by the Sun,
so the star will transfer energy to the Sun.
Could we call that an interaction?
Will this star interact with the Sun in a different way
than the Sun will interact with the star?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The StarmakerComets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels..
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something. >>>>>>>>>>
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>>>>>>>
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or >>>>>>>> a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>>>>>>> means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came
first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language??
Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
What came first the stars or the earth?All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water... >>>>>>>>>>
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>>>>>>>> means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came
first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language??
Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think
stars came first? Humm.
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:Panspermia?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>>>>>>>>> means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language??
Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think
stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it >>>>>>>>>>> means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>>>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think
stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
Le 09/09/2025 |a 08:31, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 10:22, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets.
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why
some comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor.
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>>>> partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth
and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in
Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly
functions.
"impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ?
Well, in part's I did.
Not properly.
I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to
other papers, too.
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete
bunch of nonsense from start to finish.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.
I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense.
This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists
think about their own profession.
It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters,
where non-initiated are not allowed to participate.
Real physics books, articles, courses are available online for everyone.
Your ignorance is the result of a choice to remain ignorant.
Well, possibly, but I'm German and use a second language.Therefore, I think, that nonsense is taken to the next level and I
had to stay away from that.
Did you consider that this nonsense is something you made up by
yourself ?
This is certainly a risk.
But I think, that I'm not as stupid as you think.
There is no comma before "that" in proper English.
Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do
not belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
No!
But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away.
Am Dienstag000009, 09.09.2025 um 16:38 schrieb Python:
Le 09/09/2025 |a 08:31, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Sonntag000007, 07.09.2025 um 10:37 schrieb Python:
Le 07/09/2025 |a 10:22, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000006, 06.09.2025 um 14:56 schrieb Python:
...
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth? >>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First-a an Ocean on earth. >>>>>>>>
The water came out of the interior of the Earth, not from comets. >>>>>>>
Comets are the remains of a former planet, which exploded long ago >>>>>>> in a region, where today there is the asteroid belt.
That former planet had also water upon its surface. That's why
some comets consist of water.
But mainly the water stems from within the celestial bodies.
We can see this effect easily in e.g. volcanoes, because the lava >>>>>>> contains besides of CO2 and other gases also a lot of water vapor. >>>>>>
Again, Thomas, weird stuff that you pulled out of your ass that are >>>>>> partially true and mainly false.
You forgot to answer to my posts on synchronization between Earth >>>>>> and Moon and about the ridiculous claim that cosmological maps in >>>>>> Astronomy does not take light propagation delays into account.
How come?
That is my personal impression of how popular cosmology seemingly
functions.
"impression" ? "seemingly" ? You didn't check ?
Well, in part's I did.
Not properly.
I used a technique to analyze Einstein's text, which is applicable to
other papers, too.
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete
bunch of nonsense from start to finish.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.
I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.
It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation function
of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error).
I wrote more than 420 annotations.
This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of
all kinds.
About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the
UseNet in a period of about two years.
The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink a number of comments.
But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in
this process.
The vast majority remained unchallenged.
That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the
text itself could not be defended against critique.
This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles
ever printed in a scientific journal.
I found several statements, that were in my opinion nonsense.
This is actually all over the place and has to do with how physicists
think about their own profession.
It is more like a medieval guild, which has apprentices and masters,
where non-initiated are not allowed to participate.
Real physics books, articles, courses are available online for everyone.
Sure, but my statement was that because they are available for everyone
they contain mainly nonsense.
Your ignorance is the result of a choice to remain ignorant.
If textbook-science is fake, than ignoring textbook science would be a
god idea.
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do
not belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
No!
But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away.
You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!!
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago,
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
Not until now.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 14:19:33 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" ><chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>>>>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think
stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
What came first the Earth or our Sun?
dis is not a race horse where one wins by a nose...a photo finish
requires a camera...not a guess.
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 22:29:17 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2025 14:19:33 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >><chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light. >>>>>>>
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think >>>>> stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
What came first the Earth or our Sun?
dis is not a race horse where one wins by a nose...a photo finish
requires a camera...not a guess.
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
i want to see the photo finish.
Now, God moved upon the face of the
waters of the earth and ...
then he 'prompt'; , Let there be light: and there was light.
Prompt engineering is the practice of designing, developing, and
optimizing text-based inputs (prompts) to guide generative AI models,
like large universe models , toward producing desired and accurate
outputs.
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
On 9/12/2025 9:05 PM, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
Have you ever heard of an idiot babbling
that what is 4.567 billion years for one
observer may be easily 2 billion years for
another?
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
If you understand Relativity...by a nose would mean by a slim margin measurement of...Time.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
If you understand Relativity...by a nose would mean by a slim margin measurement of...Time.
If you understand Relativity you know it is irrelevant to this
discussion.
<snip remaining idiocy>
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:55:41 -0700, Jim Pennino
<jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
If you understand Relativity...by a nose would mean by a slim margin measurement of...Time.
If you understand Relativity you know it is irrelevant to this
discussion.
<snip remaining idiocy>
If you understand..."by a nose" it means:
'by a nose'
By an extremely short or slim margin (of distance, time, or another
measure).
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/by+a+nose
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:55:41 -0700, Jim Pennino
<jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
If you understand Relativity...by a nose would mean by a slim margin measurement of...Time.
If you understand Relativity you know it is irrelevant to this >>discussion.
<snip remaining idiocy>
If you understand..."by a nose" it means:
'by a nose'
By an extremely short or slim margin (of distance, time, or another measure).
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/by+a+nose
And that has what to do with relativity?
So you concider 27,000,000 years a short amount of time?
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete
bunch of nonsense from start to finish.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.
I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.
It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation
function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my
view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error).
I wrote more than 420 annotations.
This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of
all kinds.
About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the
UseNet in a period of about two years.
The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink
a number of comments.
But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in
this process.
The vast majority remained unchallenged.
That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the
text itself could not be defended against critique.
This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles
ever printed in a scientific journal.
100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at understanding
the most obvious basic statements.
Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember?
Den 12.09.2025 08:07, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do >>>>>> not belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
No!
But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away.
You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!!
You snipped everything I wrote and repeat what you have said before.
Please address the following:
===============================
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties
of the star 10000 years ago:
its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star,
or a star approaching the end of its life-
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan
will be ~ 100 million years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun,
its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan
will be ~ 70 billion years.
The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star
10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is
a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be
known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position
will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where
the star is now.
We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago.
Thomas Heger wrote:
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python:
...
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete
bunch of nonsense from start to finish.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that.
I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.
It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation
function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in my
view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an error).
I wrote more than 420 annotations.
This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors of
all kinds.
About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the
UseNet in a period of about two years.
The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and rethink
a number of comments.
But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly in
this process.
The vast majority remained unchallenged.
That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where the
text itself could not be defended against critique.
This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst articles
ever printed in a scientific journal.
100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at understanding
the most obvious basic statements.
Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember?
No, not at all.
Le 02/09/2025 |a 12:28, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 11:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 01/09/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
...
station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the Moon. >>>>
A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'.
Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to
maintain the clock there.
No reason for this clock to be huge.
You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which Houston >>>> could be informed about t_B, which included also letters sent by mail. >>>>The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on Earth that
And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter with >>>> the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week later
would say.
But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival of >>>> the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B.
Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' your
signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'.
Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that information? >>>
could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset, with clock B.
In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are values that have
been read on clock A before, there is no communication issues here. Right? >>>
Let's suppose that these values are:
t_A = 12:30:00
t'_A = 11:30:2.56444
Typo:
t_A = 12:30:00
t'_A = 12:30:2.56444
t_B = 13:00:00
A few questions now:
1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon distance] ?
2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means in term of
clocks synchronization according to Einstein?
3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that clocks A & B will
be, then, synchronized?
No answer? How weird...
I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and the resulting delay.
On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
Not until now.
Why am I not surprised.
Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
doesn't sound familiar?
Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
I had never heard anybody babbling that
what is 1000 years for one observer may
be easily-a 500 years for another one
until I heard this idiot babble it:
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
So:
Not until now.
Why am I not surprised.
Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
doesn't sound familiar?
Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
I had never heard anybody babbling that
what is 1000 years for one observer may
be easily-a 500 years for another one
until I heard this idiot babble it:
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
So:
Not until now.
Why am I not surprised.
Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
doesn't sound familiar?
Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
one observer 500 years for another one.
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Please address the following:
===============================
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties
of the star 10000 years ago:
its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star,
or a star approaching the end of its life-
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan
will be ~ 100 million years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun,
its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan
will be ~ 70 billion years.
The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star
10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is
a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be
known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position
will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where
the star is now.
We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago.
Thomas Heger wrote:
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~1000
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with millions of light-years.
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate
in cosmology.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way.
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
I meant:Please address my scenario!
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
Le 13/09/2025 |a 22:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too >>>>>>>>>> highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up >>>>>>>> with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think
stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 22:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Oh
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
I'm sure that a real time (any
of them) has nothing in common with
[A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
poor stinker.
Le 13/09/2025 |a 08:29, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python:
...
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >>>>> bunch of nonsense from start to finish.I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. >>>>
It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the
electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation
function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in
my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an
error).
I wrote more than 420 annotations.
This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors
of all kinds.
About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the
UseNet in a period of about two years.
The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and
rethink a number of comments.
But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly
in this process.
The vast majority remained unchallenged.
That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where
the text itself could not be defended against critique.
This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst
articles ever printed in a scientific journal.
100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at
understanding the most obvious basic statements.
Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember?
No, not at all.
Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago !
See:
Le 04/09/2025 |a 17:40, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 12:28, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 11:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 01/09/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
...
station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the
Moon.
A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'.
Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to
maintain the clock there.
No reason for this clock to be huge.
You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which
Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters
sent by mail.
And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter
with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week
later would say.
But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival
of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B.
Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message '
your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'.
Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that
information?
The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on
Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset,
with clock B.
In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are
values that have been read on clock A before, there is no
communication issues here. Right?
Let's suppose that these values are:
t_A = 12:30:00
t'_A = 11:30:2.56444
Typo: t_A-a = 12:30:00
t'_A = 12:30:2.56444
t_B = 13:00:00
A few questions now:
1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon distance] ? >>>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means in
term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein?
3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that clocks
A & B will be, then, synchronized?
No answer? How weird...
I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention
any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and
the resulting delay.
It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what you call "delay") into account in this explicit equation :-a t_B - t_A = t'_A
- t_B
Le 14/09/2025 |a 06:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 22:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Oh
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
Yep
I'm sure that a real time (any
of them)-a has nothing in common with
[A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling
Indeed I hear an idiot babbling:
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
On 9/14/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/09/2025 |a 06:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 22:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Oh
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
Yep
I'm sure that a real time (any
of them)-a has nothing in common with
[A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.
When I said [a bunch of idiocies, as usual]
Le 14/09/2025 |a 10:36, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/14/2025 9:44 AM, Python wrote:
Le 14/09/2025 |a 06:34, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :
On 9/13/2025 10:30 PM, Python wrote:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 22:23, Maciej Wo+|niak a |-crit :Oh
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
erent time than foreground events.
Please address my scenario!
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0606129
Yep
I'm sure that a real time (any
of them)-a has nothing in common with
[A.E] I'm glad you're realizing it too
Do not attribute your blunders to me. Liar.
When I said [a bunch of idiocies, as usual]
Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
Idiotic, isn't it?
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth?
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first..
any my evidence comes from all different levels..
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light."
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >> >>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water?
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >> >>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light.
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >> >>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >> >>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think
stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
It takes Night and Day to make a Day.
Am Samstag000013, 13.09.2025 um 10:45 schrieb Python:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 08:29, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python:
...
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a complete >>>>>> bunch of nonsense from start to finish.I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed that. >>>>>
It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On the >>>>> electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation
function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in
my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an
error).
I wrote more than 420 annotations.
This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors
of all kinds.
About those comments I had several discussions in this group of the >>>>> UseNet in a period of about two years.
The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and
rethink a number of comments.
But the total number of annotation was only reduced insignificantly >>>>> in this process.
The vast majority remained unchallenged.
That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where
the text itself could not be defended against critique.
This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst
articles ever printed in a scientific journal.
100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at
understanding the most obvious basic statements.
Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember?
No, not at all.
Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago !
See:
Le 04/09/2025 |a 17:40, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 12:28, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 11:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 01/09/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
...
station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the >>>>>> Moon.
A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'. >>>>>>
Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to >>>>>> maintain the clock there.
No reason for this clock to be huge.
You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which
Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters
sent by mail.
And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter
with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one week >>>>>> later would say.
But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of arrival >>>>>> of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B.
Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message '
your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'.
Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that
information?
The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on
Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset,
with clock B.
In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are
values that have been read on clock A before, there is no
communication issues here. Right?
Let's suppose that these values are:
t_A = 12:30:00
t'_A = 11:30:2.56444
Typo: t_A-a = 12:30:00
t'_A = 12:30:2.56444
t_B = 13:00:00
A few questions now:
1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon distance] ? >>>>> 2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means in >>>>> term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein?
3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that clocks >>>>> A & B will be, then, synchronized?
No answer? How weird...
I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention
any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light and
the resulting delay.
It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what you
call "delay") into account in this explicit equation :-a t_B - t_A = t'_A >> - t_B
This is the delay, but only under certain conditions.
Main requirements: A and B should not move in respect to each other and
the speed of light on the way had always to be the same.
But there ain't no variables for delay (like e.g. 'd') in Einstein's text.
What was also missing, that is a connection between delay and clock-setting.
The correct method would be to adjust the remote clock to a timing
signal, which is already corrected by the estimated delay.
E.g. a position on the Moon shall be exactly 1 light-seconds away and a clock there should become synchronized with a master clock in Houston.
Houston would send a timing signal to the Moon at say 1:00:00 pm, but
with the content 1:00:01 pm.
The man in the Moon reads out this signal and turns the knob, that the
Moon clock is set according to that signal from Houston.
Since Einstein didn't mention this method or anything similar or even
the delay itself, we can only assume, that he didn't want.
Den 14.09.2025 12:14, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
Den 13.09.2025 22:23, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/13/2025 9:37 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Our two main sequence stars both existed in the same universe
10000 years ago
Have you ever heard about an idiot babbling that
what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
300 years ago for someone else?
Idiotic, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
You claim that according to Einstein:
"what was 1000 years ago for you may be easily
-a300 years ago for someone else."
This statement is so ambiguous that it isn't even wrong,
it is meaningless. It depends on the what "what" refers to.
In the context you have used it, "what" is:
"The light you see in the telescope was emitted from the star"
So the statement becomes:
The light you see in the telescope was emitted from the star
1000 years ago for you, but the light someone else see in
the telescope may be emitted from the same star-a 300 years ago for
someone else.
Idiotic, isn't it?
But to make this happen, "you" and "someone else" would have to
travel between the events along very different paths in spacetime,
and accelerations and speeds would have to be of magnitudes
which are impossible to achieve in the real world.
But this experiment is performed in the real world,
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:40:25 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light. >>>>>>>
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think >>>>> stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
It takes Night and Day to make a Day.
I mean, I don't understand your logic with rotating planet.
It's night on both sides, and then There Is Light..eventually on
either side.
What was your science teacher's name in school, Stevie Wonder????
When you get home, don't you turn on the lights??
and then There Is Light.
Do you sleep with the light on?
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:40:25 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars.
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light. >>>>>>>
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think >>>>> stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
It takes Night and Day to make a Day.
I mean, I don't understand your logic with rotating planet.
It's night on both sides, and then There Is Light..eventually on
either side.
What was your science teacher's name in school, Stevie Wonder????
When you get home, don't you turn on the lights??
and then There Is Light.
Do you sleep with the light on?
Le 14/09/2025 |a 10:21, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Samstag000013, 13.09.2025 um 10:45 schrieb Python:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 08:29, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 07:56 schrieb Python:
...
Your "analyze" of Einstein's text is an abysmal failure, a
complete bunch of nonsense from start to finish.
For instance I had taken 'The Galactic Black Hole' and analyzed >>>>>>>> that.
I made an English version called 'Annotated version of SRT'.
It was a pdf of the English translation of Einstein's paper 'On
the electrodynamics of moving bodies'.
Then I marked every questionable statement with the annotation
function of that pdf software and wrote a comment, why that was in >>>>>> my view a questionable statement (and whether or not that was an
error).
I wrote more than 420 annotations.
This actually means: the text contains a colossal number of errors >>>>>> of all kinds.
About those comments I had several discussions in this group of
the UseNet in a period of about two years.
The comments helped me a lot to clarify my own statements and
rethink a number of comments.
But the total number of annotation was only reduced
insignificantly in this process.
The vast majority remained unchallenged.
That means: there are a HUGE number of errors in this text, where >>>>>> the text itself could not be defended against critique.
This in turn would qualify Einstein's text as among the worst
articles ever printed in a scientific journal.
100% of your "comments" are idiotic garbage. You failed at
understanding the most obvious basic statements.
Especially about synchronization of clocks. Remember?
No, not at all.
Are you kidding ? It was a few days ago !
See:
Le 04/09/2025 |a 17:40, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 12:28, Python a |-crit :
Le 02/09/2025 |a 11:39, Python a |-crit :
Le 01/09/2025 |a 08:23, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
...
station 'A' is located in Houston, Texas and station 'B' upon the >>>>>>> Moon.
A-time is usual Texas-time and 'B-time' was named 'Moon mean time'. >>>>>>>
Now we have a huge clock on the Moon and also an 'Apollo' crew to >>>>>>> maintain the clock there.
No reason for this clock to be huge.
You wrote, that a number of methods would be possible by which
Houston could be informed about t_B, which included also letters >>>>>>> sent by mail.
And I have written, that you should explain to me, what a letter >>>>>>> with the time 'it's now 13:00:00 Moon mean time' arriving one
week later would say.
But you are in fact correct and t_B was defined as time of
arrival of the signal in B, which was the meaning of t_B.
Therefore the letter from the Moon should contain the message ' >>>>>>> your signal arrived here at 13:00:00 Moon mean time'.
Now: how do you synchronize the clock on the Moon with that
information?
The message is sent to A in your scenario, so it is the clock on
Earth that could be synchronized, by applying a computed offset,
with clock B.
In order to do so A also need to uses t_A and t'_A. As both are
values that have been read on clock A before, there is no
communication issues here. Right?
Let's suppose that these values are:
t_A = 12:30:00
t'_A = 11:30:2.56444
Typo: t_A-a = 12:30:00
t'_A = 12:30:2.56444
t_B = 13:00:00
A few questions now:
1. Can you check if 2*d/(tpA - tA) = c [d is the Earth-Moon
distance] ?
2. Can you check if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ? What does this means >>>>>> in term of clocks synchronization according to Einstein?
3. Can you compute an offset to be applied to clock A so that
clocks A & B will be, then, synchronized?
No answer? How weird...
Still no answer?
I have criticized Einstein's method, because Einstein didn't mention
any means to correct the error caused by the finite speed of light
and the resulting delay.
It is not an "error", it is what it is. And Einstein take this (what
you call "delay") into account in this explicit equation :-a t_B - t_A
= t'_A - t_B
This is the delay, but only under certain conditions.
Sure. It is the delay under a specific condition. This condition il :
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
Main requirements: A and B should not move in respect to each other
and the speed of light on the way had always to be the same.
Sure. It is explicitly stated by Einstein.
But there ain't no variables for delay (like e.g. 'd') in Einstein's
text.
I don't need a "variable" called d. I can grasp that the difference
between two time measures is a delay.
Are you that dump that you missed the obvious: t_whatever -
t_whatever_else IS A DELAY !!!? ? ?
Your stupidity is properly amazing Thomas.
What was also missing, that is a connection between delay and clock-
setting.
Quite the opposite: the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the
definition of synchronization: i.e. correct clock settings.
On 9/14/2025 9:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But this experiment is performed in the real world,
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
It is really two experiments:
Experiment 1:
Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground.
Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on
an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction.
When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
Result:
Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A-
Experiment 2:
Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground.
Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on
an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction.
When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
Result:
Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A-
Sure, sure, planets are moving, very much
evidence for that, so we should agree that
angels pushing them are confirmed very
strongly.
Maciej, now you can demonstrate how smart you are by calling
Hafele and Keating "brainwashed religious maniacs".
Am Freitag000012, 12.09.2025 um 12:54 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 12.09.2025 08:07, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Mittwoch000010, 10.09.2025 um 20:57 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 10.09.2025 10:40, skrev Thomas Heger:
Am Montag000008, 08.09.2025 um 14:23 schrieb Paul B. Andersen:
Den 07.09.2025 10:26, skrev Thomas Heger:
It simply wouldn't make sense, to find patterns in stars, which do >>>>>> not belong to the same time.
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
Does this star and the Sun "belong to the same time"?
No!
But we sure can "find patterns" in a star 10000 ly away.
You cannot find patterns in star configurations in a single star!!
You snipped everything I wrote and repeat what you have said before.
Please address the following:
===============================
Consider a star 10000 light years away.
The spectrum of the star will tell us the following properties
of the star 10000 years ago:
its mass, temperature, if it was a new born star, a main sequence star,
or a star approaching the end of its life-
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class A0V, its lifespan
will be ~ 100 million years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class G2V, like the sun,
its lifespan will be ~ 10 billion years.
If it is a main sequence star with spectral class K9V, its lifespan
will be ~ 70 billion years.
The point is that if we see that the star was a main sequence star
10000 years ago, we can be pretty sure that it still is
a main sequence star now. The radial speed of the star will be
known by its Doppler shift, and several measurements of its position
will reveal its proper motion. That weans that we will know where
the star is now.
We know that the Sun was a main sequence star 10000 years ago.
Thomas Heger wrote:
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression
of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate
in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way.
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand
light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
Den 14.09.2025 22:56, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/14/2025 9:10 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
But this experiment is performed in the real world,
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
It is really two experiments:
Experiment 1:
Clock A and clock B are co-located on the ground.
Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock B is put on
an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the westwards direction.
When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
Result:
Proper time of clock B is 273 ns more than the proper time of clock A-
Experiment 2:
Clock A and clock C are co-located on the ground.
Clock A stays stationary on the ground while clock C is put on
an aeroplane and flown around the Earth in the eastwards direction.
When the clocks again are co-located the clocks are compared.
Result:
Proper time of clock C is 59 ns less than the proper time of clock A-
Sure, sure, planets are moving, very much
evidence for that, so we should agree that
angels pushing them are confirmed very
strongly.
This comment of yours makes it clear that you have
read and understood Hafele and Keating's paper.
BTW, Maciej:
It is invisible blue fairies, not angels, that are pushing
the planets along. Did you really not know that?
Le 14/09/2025 |a 10:21, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization.
Le 14/09/2025 |a 22:21, Python a |-crit :
Le 14/09/2025 |a 10:21, Thomas Heger a |-crit :
the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization.
Synchronisation POUR qui?
QUI mesure r|-ellement, sur sa montre, que t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B?
Ce n'est ni A, ni B.
On 9/14/2025 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:40:25 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars. >>>>>>>>>>
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light. >>>>>>>>
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think >>>>>> stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
It takes Night and Day to make a Day.
I mean, I don't understand your logic with rotating planet.
It's night on both sides, and then There Is Light..eventually on
either side.
Its night for some people on the planet and day for others. Depends on
the rotation... :^)
What was your science teacher's name in school, Stevie Wonder????
When you get home, don't you turn on the lights??
and then There Is Light.
Do you sleep with the light on?
Le 13/09/2025 a 14:08, Maciej Wo?niak a ocrit :
On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
I had never heard anybody babbling that
what is 1000 years for one observer may
be easily 500 years for another one
until I heard this idiot babble it:
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
So:
Not until now.
Why am I not surprised.
Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
doesn't sound familiar?
Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
one observer 500 years for another one.
"anything goes" is back! Nurses!!!
Le 15/09/2025 |a 19:16, Richard Hachel a |-crit :
Le 14/09/2025 |a 22:21, Python a |-crit :
Le 14/09/2025 |a 10:21, Thomas Heger a |-crit :Synchronisation POUR qui?
the condition t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B is the definition of synchronization. >>
QUI mesure r|-ellement, sur sa montre, que t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B?
Ce n'est ni A, ni B.
You've already forgot?
t_A and t_A' are measured by clock at A
t_B by clock at B
Then these values can be sent to ANYONE
And ANYONE can check.
Python <jp@python.invalid> wrote:
Le 13/09/2025 |a 14:08, Maciej Wo?niak a |-crit :
On 9/13/2025 2:06 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 14:31, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
On 9/12/2025 2:27 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 12.09.2025 12:58, skrev Maciej Wo?niak:
I had never heard anybody babbling that
what is 1000 years for one observer may
be easily 500 years for another one
until I heard this idiot babble it:
Have you ever heard of some idiot
babbling that what is 1000 years
for one observer may be easily
500 years for another one?
So:
Not until now.
Why am I not surprised.
Relativity of time, time dilation, twins paradox -
doesn't sound familiar?
Sure. They are all experimentally confirmed phenomena.
As confirmed as angels pushing planets on crystal rings,
sure; anyway, they easily make what is 1000 years for
one observer 500 years for another one.
"anything goes" is back! Nurses!!!
'Those nice young men in their clean white coats' may be better.
They may even take him away,
It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B.
If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and t_A
was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than
t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with.
Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn
would make 'B-time' irrelevant.
That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized with
the clock in A, anyhow.
Den 15.09.2025 08:38, skrev Thomas Heger:
It starts with the lack of a proper definition of t_A and t_B.
If disconnected local times are meant with 'A-time' and 'B-time' and
t_A was measured in 'A-time' and t_B by means of 'B-time', than
t_B-t_A would be an illegal operation to begin with.
Therefore t_A and t_B must be based on 'A-time' only. And that in turn
would make 'B-time' irrelevant.
That isn't bad at all, because the clock in B shall be synchronized
with the clock in A, anyhow.
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer
|-a at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which
|-a are simultaneous with these events.
|-a If there is at the point B of space another clock in all
|-a respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer
|-a at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate
|-a neighbourhood of B."
An observer at A can determine the time value of the clock at A.
An observer at B can determine the time value of the clock at B.
Got it?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare,
|-a in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B.
|-a We have so far defined only an rCLA timerCY and a rCLB time.rCY
It is not possible to compare the time of events at A and
the time of event at B without further assumptions.
Got it?
So we have to make further assumptions:
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "We have not defined a common rCLtimerCY for A and B, for
|-a the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
|-a by definition that the rCLtimerCY required by light to travel
|-a from A to B equals the rCLtimerCY it requires to travel from
|-a B to A."
The _definition_ of simultaneity is that light uses the same
time to go from A to B and to go from from B to A.
Got it?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| "Let a ray of light start at the rCLA timerCY tA from A towards B,
| let it at the rCLB timerCY tB be reflected at B in the direction
| of A, and arrive again at A at the rCLA timerCY trC#A."
tA, tB and t'A-a are precisely defined as:
tA is the time shown by the clock at A when the ray leave A.
tB is the time shown by the clock at B when the ray hits B.
t'A is the time shown by the clock at A when the reflected ray hits A.
Got it?
quote from -o 1. Definition of Simultaneity -------------------------------------------
| " In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
|-a-a-a-a-a-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB."
For this equation to be true must
-atB = (tA + trC#A)/2 = tA + (t'A - tA)/2
Note that Einstein says nothing about how to make
asynchronous clocks synchronous. He only says that
if-a tB reA tA = trC#A reA tB (or TB = tA + (t'A - tA)/2)
then the clock at A and the clock at B are synchronous.
This is a definition of simultaneity, not a description
of how to synchronise clock.
--------
How to synchronise clocks depend on a lot of circumstances,
and it would be stupid of Einstein to define a method
which should be applicable for all cases in all future.
To illustrate this problem let's ask:
How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks?
Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator.
Clock B is a distance L east of clock A.
We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to
synchronise clock B to UTC.
How do w do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame,-a and
we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks.
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B
that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of light.
But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because of all
the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a straight
line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same time? I think
not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the same.
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B
that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of
light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer because
of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons are a
straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the same
time? I think not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the
same.
ItrCOs funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source,
On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from B
that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of
light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer
because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons
are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the
same time? I think not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the
same.
ItrCOs funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source,
Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum
experiment - a photon interferring with
itself.
It takes 2 different paths in the same time,
does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible
since they're different and the time is the same.
Or isn't it the same?
On 9/15/2025 1:49 PM, Maciej Wo+|niak wrote:
On 9/15/2025 10:29 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/15/2025 1:01 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/14/2025 11:38 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
[...]
One observer of photons from A coming right at it, and photons from
B that need to go through a shit load of twists and turns before the
observer. The photons A and B are both traveling at the speed of
light. But, B's ones takes a longer path to reach the observer
because of all the twists and turns in the medium, while A's photons
are a straight line? Will the photons arrive at the observer at the
same time? I think not?
However, this does not mean that the speed of light differs. Its the
same.
ItrCOs funny... Well, imagine two photons emitted from the same source,
Well, imagine ONE foton from famous quantum
experiment - a photon interferring with
itself.
It takes 2 different paths in the same time,
does it have c speed on both? Quite impossible
since they're different and the time is the same.
Or isn't it the same?
Its odd to me. If we constantly observe a photon, it seems to take one
rail in the continuous field, infinite rails for the photon to travel
on. But, if we look away, it seems to take all rails at once. Its also strange thinking about being able to see a laser beam when we are not
the target, but we can see the photons. Means its not perfect?
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with
millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression
of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate
in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is
actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way.
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand
light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events
belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not
belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
You really are decades behind the times.
(and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong)
FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions,
and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax)
of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent,
all the way out to the galactic centre.
Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)>
We do know the delays you worry about,
and we do know which stars are near,
and which are far away.
We also know which stars are really double,
and which are aligned by coincidence.
We have an accurate 3D map of the galaxy,
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with
millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression >> of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate
in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is
actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. >>
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand
light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events
belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
You really are decades behind the times.
(and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong)
FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions,
and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax)
of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent,
all the way out to the galactic centre.
Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)>
If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars
in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times.
The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million years, within which the stars had moved.
But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up,
down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable
(with red- or blueshift).
To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you
would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that
would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable.
So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how
fast.
This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to
move and we don't know the direction.
Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is millions of light years away.
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Montag000015, 15.09.2025 um 13:37 schrieb J. J. Lodder:
...
| We see stars in 10000 light years distance as they were and
| where they had been 10000 years ago, while we see our Sun as
| the Sun has been 8 minutes ago.
| That is a HUGE difference.
|
| The picture we see is actually 'layered in time', while
| the universe isn't.
|
| Therefore we see things, which are not real and which do
| not belong to the same time.
We see that the star was real 10000 years ago, and if it was
a main sequence star then, we know that it still is a real
main sequence star now.
It is indeed a weird idea that a star that was real 10000 years
ago is not real now.
What do you think the stars we see in the telescope are?
Mirages?
We know that the star and the Sun were 10000 light years
from Each other 10000 years ago, and we know that the star
and the Sun still are ~10000 light years away from each other.
Ten-thousand years is actually nothing in cosmology, which deals with
millions of light-years.
well, now we have a 'little' problem:
if we have millions of years as delay, then we can't call our impression >> >> of the stars 'real'.
It is like a postcard from the last century, which is delivered today.
sure, the picture and the content were once real.
But the sender might already be dead.
And for million years the two stars have transferred energy
(light) to each other, and will keep doing so for million
of years.
The main problem isn't that, but that distance is very hard to estimate >> >> in cosmology.
Since everything moves within our galaxy and within the rest of the
universe, an error in measurement of the distance would be equal to an
error in the positions.
We could see a star moving to, say, the left in the foreground and a
star moving to the right in the background at the same time at a
relatively close position.
And because it's so hard to determine the true distance, we could
actually be in error, which star is in the background and which one is
actually nearer to us.
So we could find a relation between two seemingly close stars, which
were never that close.
The stars are at any time living side by side ~10000 light years
from each other.
That is't necessarily the case, just because you see two stars that way. >> >>
That we happen to live close to one of them doesn't make them'living' is not the right phrase for pictures of stars.
"belong to separate times."
They are both living at the same time.
I meant:
if you have a depth in a picture from the night sky of several thousand >> >> light years, for instance, you need to consider, that background events >> >> belong to a different time than foreground events.
The discrepancy is actually huge and can easily be millions of years.
Therefore pictures of the backgrond stars and the forground stars do not >> >> belong together, but should be corrected because of different delays.
Unfortunately we don't know the exact delay and we also don't know,
which stars are actually the background stars and which one belong to
the foreground.
We only assume, that some theories are valid, which enable us to
estimate the distances.
But those theories are most likely wrong.TH
You really are decades behind the times.
(and it is most of your opinions that are just plain wrong)
FYI, in the meantime we have seen the Hipparcos and GAIA missions,
and we have direct distance measurements (by parallax)
of more than a billion stars, accurate to a few percent,
all the way out to the galactic centre.
Those stars have been measured repeatedly over the 10 years of the GAIA
mission, so we also know their proper motions accurately.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)>
If you see a star in say 1 million light years distance and some stars
in two million light years distance, than they belong to different times.
The difference is actually huge, because we're talking about one million
years, within which the stars had moved.
FYI, the galaxy is 'only' 100 000 lightyears across.
But you cannot even estimate the direction, into which they move (up,
down, left or right) because only the 'z-axis-movement' is measurable
(with red- or blueshift).
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
To measure the direction perpendicular to the direction of sight, you
would need to measure at least two positions of that star. But that
would take way too long for a single human beeing to become measurable.
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
So stars move and we don't even know towards were they move and not how
fast.
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
This would be quite unfortunate, if you want to estimate their current
distance in respect to each others, because they had 1 million years to
move and we don't know the direction.
Precision wouldn't help that much, because even the sharpest of all
telescopes cannot make the movement of distant stars faster. And for
geometrical reasons the angles to measure are very small, if the star is
millions of light years away.
See, you are ages behind the times,
and completely out of touch with reality as it is today.
Why don't you learn something about reality
before you start making stupid comments on it?
Jan
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2025 13:55:41 -0700, Jim Pennino
<jimp@gonzo.specsol.net> wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip old crap>
i meant, what is the age of our sun..
4.567 +/- 0.003 billion years.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
4.54 +/- 0.05 billion years.
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
I wouldn't call a difference of 27,000,000 years "by a nose".
penninojim@yahoo.com
If you understand Relativity...by a nose would mean by a slim margin measurement of...Time.
If you understand Relativity you know it is irrelevant to this
discussion.
<snip remaining idiocy>
If you understand..."by a nose" it means:
'by a nose'
By an extremely short or slim margin (of distance, time, or another
measure).
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/by+a+nose
And that has what to do with relativity?
So you concider 27,000,000 years a short amount of time?
--
penninojim@yahoo.com
27,000,000 years is a fake number. It's a fake photo finish.
compare it with the age of the earth (or our earth)
is it a photo finish? who won by a nose?
i want to see the photo finish.
Now, God moved upon the face of the
waters of the earth and ...
then he 'prompt'; , Let there be light: and there was light.
The 'science community' is trying to move the order of events
"waters of the earth"
"Let there be Light"
to
"Let there be Light
"waters of the earth".
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
I mean, I understand the goal of the 'scientific community' is to
assasinate God so thst the Science guys want to rewrite creation...
but it ain't going to work.
There is no cure for 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.'.
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
27,000,000 years is a fake number. And they know it.
It's Hollywood accounting.
It's cooking the books.
Ask the Math department. They get hired by people who want ot cook books all the time.
It is the sci.math department that comes up with tweaking 27,000,000 years to keep the horse up front.
You have a totem pole. The Jewish people are on top of that totem pole, and the rest of yous who are not Jewish are
under the top of the totem pole, isn't that correct??? The Jewish people are on top of that totem pole, isn't that correct?
Yous are not even allowed to answer that question, let alone ...ask it.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters.
3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 20:24:50 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" ><chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/14/2025 12:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 14 Sep 2025 00:40:25 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 9/11/2025 10:01 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2025 13:18:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 4:29 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2025 16:26:36 -0700, The Starmaker
<starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 14:16:07 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 1:33 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 12:59:01 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
<chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/9/2025 12:20 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Mon, 8 Sep 2025 12:10:23 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/8/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2025 14:11:40 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 4:37 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
On Sat, 6 Sep 2025 13:34:25 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/6/2025 9:53 AM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 5 Sep 2025 14:31:10 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/4/2025 11:39 PM, The Starmaker wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2025 14:40:42 -0700, The Starmaker >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
What came first the stars or the earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All evidence i gathered says the earth came first.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any my evidence comes from all different levels.. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
All evidence i gathered says the earth came first. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The most simpliest level..
it is written, and God said, "Let there be light." >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
but the Light went on After there was First an Ocean on earth.
Comets with shit loads of water impacting the primordial Earth?
Panspermia?
It's interesting to me. Like fish spawning in a river or something.
you might as well say aliens from another planet added the water...
This is too highly engineered... The fish spawning in a river or
something, seems rather "natural"? ;^)
I don't understand what you are getting at..
Are you saying the earth looks too highly engineered, or not too
highly engineered????
Are you saying a million monkeys with a typewriter built the earth? Or
a few comets aimlessly wandering around brought all the water? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I mean, you brought up Panspermia theory, do you even know what it
means??
Life can possibly begin from a shit load of carriers impacting an "Egg",
aka, fertile planet dur the right conditions? Fair enough, or moron style?
i don't know why you are soooo upset...you are the one that comes up
with these conspiracy theories of Panspermia...
They are fun to ponder on. Is it true? I don't know.
If you read the Subject Heading of this thread..it reads: What came >>>>>>>>>>> first the stars or the earth?
I already posted the answer the Earth came first.
And it already had an ocean.
So, comets didn't exist then, since comets come from stars. >>>>>>>>>>>
Try to keep track on the ...'order of events'.
Stars came first?
The Earth came first, then stars were born...Let there be light. >>>>>>>>>
Do I need to repost the 'order of events'? What your first language?? >>>>>>>>> Afaganastan???
Here are clearly the 'order of events':
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon >>>>>>>> the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the >>>>>>>> waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light
[...]
Humm. Not sure how to respond to that line of thought. I still think >>>>>>> stars came first? Humm.
Is that just a 'feeling' you have, or is it based on Science that
stars came first?
Stellar nurseries came first.
Okay, I'll make it easy for you..
What came first, Night or Day?
Both! Depends on the rotating planet?
It takes Night and Day to make a Day.
I mean, I don't understand your logic with rotating planet.
It's night on both sides, and then There Is Light..eventually on
either side.
Its night for some people on the planet and day for others. Depends on
the rotation... :^)
What was your science teacher's name in school, Stevie Wonder????
When you get home, don't you turn on the lights??
and then There Is Light.
Do you sleep with the light on?
Do you like to watch Black and White movies?
On 9/15/2025 9:25 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks?
Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator.
Clock B is a distance L east of clock A.
We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to
synchronise clock B to UTC.
How do w do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame, and
we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks.
The following calculations are made in the ECI frame.
v = 465.1 m/s v/c = 1.55e-6
We assume that at t = 0 the clocks are synonymous and show 0.
That is at t = 0, tA = 0 and TB = 0.
If we send a light pulse from clock A to clock B, clock B
will move away from clock A at the speed v.
We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B:
ct = L + vt => t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)ria(1 + 1.55e-6)
That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse
was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B
must show t1 + (L/c)ria(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it.
TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above.
(The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio)
What a pity that the nonsense of your idiot guru
is practically unusable...
Den 15.09.2025 22:26, skrev Maciej Wo+|niak:
On 9/15/2025 9:25 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
How do we synchronise TAI and UTC clocks?
Let two clocks A and B be stationary at the geoid at equator.
Clock B is a distance L east of clock A.
We know that clock A is synchronous with UTC, and we want to
synchronise clock B to UTC.
How do w do it?
The problem is that TAI and UTC clocks are synchronous in
the non rotating Earth centred frame of reference (ECI-frame),
they are NOT synchronous in the ground frame.
But the clocks A and B are moving in the ECI-frame,-a and
we can't stop the spinning of the Earth to sync the clocks.
The following calculations are made in the ECI frame.
v = 465.1 m/s-a v/c = 1.55e-6
We assume that at t = 0 the clocks are synonymous and show 0.
That is at t = 0, tA = 0 and TB = 0.
If we send a light pulse from clock A to clock B, clock B
will move away from clock A at the speed v.
We can calculate the time the light pulse will use to hit B:
-act = L + vt-a =>-a t = L/(c-v) = (L/c)ria(1 + 1.55e-6)
That means that if clock A showed t1 when the light pulse
was emitted, then, to be synchronous with clock A, clock B
must show t1 + (L/c)ria(1 + 1.55e-6) when the pulse hits it.
TAI clocks are routinely synced after the basic principle shown above.
(The details are different of course. Satellites, optic fibre, radio)
What a pity that the nonsense of your idiot guru
is practically unusable...
Interesting, but not surprising, to see that you believe
that Einstein invented the International Atomic Time
which consists of hundreds of clocks kept in sync with each other.
"Chris M. Thomasson" wife looks at him and sez, "ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?
TURN THE FUCKING LIGHTS OFF!!!!"