- Friend, status sharing:
- [part of share:] "Here is a hint: don't hold up a piece of paper for an internet picture."
Photo of lady looking like Mrs Obama, holding up a piece of paper saying:
My Husband
has killed more
young girls than
Boko Haram
ever could. - My comment:
- is that Mrs Obama?
Btw, I have let myself been photographed with pieces of paper containing urls to my blogs. Can photoshopped versions have circulated or be still circulating? - Probably non-spoof identified:
# BRING BACK
OUR GIRLS- Any non-spoof photo of me
- holding a cardboard sign would include a url to my blogs. Unless it was old enough to be to my Antimodernism site or saying:
Erkälteter
Straßensänger
______
Førkølet
Gadesanger
Now, to the main dish: - AN, status
- 8 May, 16:32.
- Just tried to log in to my account at the Catholic Answers Forum and got this. I assume my offence was that I posted about the upcoming Mic'd Up show about The principle
Forum Message Your account has been locked for the following reason: spam This change will be lifted: Never - HGL, I
- 10 May
- 1) tried to comment and couldn't.
- 2) wrote a thing
- 3) looked around at other status update and found something else that I didn't find
- 4) wrote a thing again.
- My first status/comment:
- Has someone taken away all the comment threads or is someone giving my computer a bug of it?
- My second:
- It seems someone has also taken away comments and comment function on FB elsewhere.
I commented on a tweet by "Pontifex" from 28 april, namely that:
- it was against the word of God to say "inequality is the root of social evil"
- it is worse than nepotism if a pontiff gives an indulgence for reading HIS own blog or twitter account (as you know monetary alms were taken off indulgences lists at Trent because of a slighter resemblance to simony).
NOW that comment is gone. Is it just my account or is it every account? - AN
- Hans-Georg, I'm seeing all the comment threads
- Rick DeLano
- Which ones are missing?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- None now. They were an hour ago from the computer I was using.
- Rick DeLano
- OK. Question: Do we know the distance from Earth to Sun?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Yes, insofar as we know the angle of sunshine on moon. And insofar as we know the angle of sunshine to Jupiter or Neptune we can know the distance there to. It is similutaneous triangulation. Pure geometry.
NOT so with so called parallax. Because there there is a movement involved and we do not know that Earth rather than sun + star are moving.
We do also know the distance in lightminutes: eight from sun to earth.
That is why distance measures in light days make sense even without believing alpha Centauri is as far as four light years away.
- Rick DeLano
- Doesn't matter whether the Earth is moving, or the sun and star are moving. Geometry is the same in either case.
We know from simple geometry that Alpha Centauri is much more than a light day away. This is certain.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- No.
Dirty little nag, you did not do your homework yesterday.
ANGLE is the same, but we do not know that sun and star move in same distance, which means that the known length (yes that is necessary for triangulation of lengths, I did that in high school!) is outside the relevant triangle.
- Update
- All Saints 2018
- I heard he was ill, heard from Sungenis he was still alive, and asked the latter to forward an apology to him for the words now stricken out and crossed over, while my theoretical position is the same.
I hae no use for keeping quarrels with dead or seriously ill and potentially dying men.
- Rick DeLano
- Calm down, HGL. Not necessary to become nasty. This is an intellectual discussion.
The issue of distance, as I have already told you, is relevant *only* to the extent that we can calculate the distance to Alpha Centauri, completely, given a known distance between Earth and Sun.
You have already admitted we know the distance to the Sun. The rest is simple geometry.
Do you deny the validity of geometry? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Not when you ignore the same correct argument over and over and over by mere assertion. It was an intellectual discussion years ago, when you and Sungenis ignored it. Now you are still ignoring it and asking me to take that as an intellectual discussion. And since distance to SUN is OUTSIDE the triangle earth - star position a, same star position b, the distance to Sun is irrelevant to correct geoemtry and trigonometry. Learn maths before teaching it!
- Rick DeLano
- Excuse me, HGL. This assertion: "distance to SUN is OUTSIDE the triangle earth - star position"- is false. A triangle consisting of Earth/Sun/Alpha Centauri can be constructed. Do you deny this?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- It could if you had angle of sunlight on alpha centauri or angle of starlight on sun.
- Rick DeLano
- No. It can be constructed very easily. Take Earth. Or Sun. Or Alpha Centauri. Make a dot. Connect a line from that dot to each of the other two. Notice that we have a triangle. Do you deny this?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Works on paper. Works equally on paper whatever distance you allot to alpha C from Sun and Earth.
- Rick DeLano
- We agree that it works on paper.
It is not correct that it works on paper whatever distance you allot to Alpha Centauri, since we notice that there is a precise degree, measurable, by which Alpha Centauri changes its position wrt Earth, over the course of a year.
This precise degree is, if memory serves, 0.75 degrees of arc.
Would you like me to check, or do you admit this>? - Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In order not to allow a confusion of terms: I do not agree that the triangle on the paper can give you the angle of sunlight on alpha Centauri or the angle of alpha Centauri light on Sun.
The angle of α Centauri 0.76 arc seconds is not involved in a triangle involving the sun. It is involved in a triangle involving earth - star in two positions. - Rick DeLano
- Precisely; that is, parallax is observed in the amount of 0.76 seconds over the course of the year. This gives us, as a matter of simple geometry, the distance to Alpha Centauri. The result is certain. Do you deny this?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I deny your honesty or coherence in using "precisely" there.
- Rick DeLano
- I certainly see no evidence of dishonesty in my agreeing to your terms precisely.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I did very much not agree to your proposition, nor does it follow from the ones I agreed to.
Update : What about a triangle involving – simultaneously – Earth, Sun and Star ?
Between Earth and Sun, as I admitted, distance can be known.
The problem with such a triangle is that it does not involve the known angle of what is called « parallax » so it gives us one distance (Earth to Sun) and one angle (between Sun and Star as seen from Earth). Two of the six quantities.
How so it does not involve the known angle ? That known angle is in fact between, not two sides of the triangle, but between two versions of the side Earth to Star. So that side of the triangle is wavering between for instance Christmas and St John’s Feast at Midsummer by a variation of – in the case ofα Centauri – these 0.76 arc seconds. But that is the temporal wavering of one of the sides, not any angle within the simultaneous triangle. And unlike for the case when Sun is at angles with Moon or Jupiter, the lacking angles, as said, cannot be measured. For α Centauri is not a reflecting body on which you can measure angle of reflected sunlight. Nor is the Sun a reflecting body on which you can measure the angle of reflected α Centauri-light. As already said./HGL
One more update:
NG blogs > Phenomena: No Place Like Home
Here’s What Exoplanets Really Look Like — For Now
by Nadia Drake
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/05/13/direct-images-exoplanets/
Relevant quote:
We know of more than 1,700 exoplanets. But most of these planets have been detected indirectly, by the way they darken their stars’ faces, their gentle tugs on their home stars, or by the effects of their gravity on distant starlight.
In other words - they have been concluded from Newtonian mechanistic explanations rather than seen.
I posed some questions in a comment I posted, which has not been published, as yet.
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Ioannes Georgius Lundahl
May 16, 2014
“Discovered in 2008, planet 1RXS 1609 (upper left) is about eight times as massive as Jupiter and orbits a sun-like star about 500 light-years away”
Its massivity is, I suppose, partly a conclusion of apparent size calculated with the distance of 500 lightyears, right?
“An exoplanet (red spot), orbits the brown dwarf 2M1207 (centre), about 230 light-years from Earth. 2M1207b is five times more massive than Jupiter”
Mutatis mutandis dito, right?
“Planetary system HR 8799 and its four planets are roughly 129 light-years from Earth. The planets are all bigger than Jupiter.”
And so on?
“Controversial planet Fomalhaut b, with less than two Jupiter-masses, circles the star Fomalhaut, 25 light-years away.”
Mass calculated from mass of star (apparent size calculated by distance, right?) calculated by Newtonian mechanics for orbits, right?
“HD 106906b orbits a star 300 light-years away. At 11 Jupiter-masses, HD 106906 b is pushing the upper limits of planetary masses.”
Second method [of the two I mentioned above] of calculation of 11 Jupiter masses, I presume?
“Planet GJ 504 b is about four Jupiter-masses and orbits a sun-like star 57 light-years away. In visible light, the planet would be magenta”
Not visible / in visible light? How do we know it is there?
“Gas giant GU Psc b, announced May 13, is 2,000 times the Earth-sun distance from its star.”
That distance is of course calculated from the calculated distance from us to its star?
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire