Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus
From: Captain! (SpammersMustDie_at_now.net)
Date: 01/24/05
- Next message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Previous message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- In reply to: Brad Guth: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Next in thread: Brad Guth: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 23:43:05 GMT
"Brad Guth" <bradguth@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:92b7045be75052318217dbff1c9d79a1.49644@mygate.mailgate.org...
> "Albedo shift from a core sample?
>
> Not really. I believe I can relocate the research accomplished that was
> based upon what moonlight and earthshine had been accomplishing as of a
> thousand years ago, or something like that.
>
> "Sirius isn't the closest star system, Alpha Centauri is. Based upon
> your logic we must be in orbit with AC as well.
>
> I don't think so, however Alpha Centauri could certainly lay a
> gravitational role in forming and/or influencing the elliptical orbit
> we're taking in relationship to the massive Sirius star system.
>
> "Sirius is a fairly large star that is close to us. THAT makes it the
> brightest star in the sky. Surely, you are aware of Rigel in the
> constellation Orion and how much bigger and brighter it is than Sirius?
>
> Thanks for that feedback. However our motion with respect to other such
> other or bigger stars isn't playing along with the perceived 105,000
> year timeline. Rigel bing a bluish-white supergiant is certainly a
> worthy contender, however being 900 light years away and 55,000 times
> the luminosity of our sun is more than 100 fold that of the Sirius
> gravity influence. Gravity goes by the square of the distance, thus
> being less than 1.1e-4 the gravity isn't exactly taking the point on
> this trek.
>
> Rigel being so much brighter than Sirius represents that coming to
> within 0.1 light year would certain have manage to illuminate the
> environments of those diatoms. Thus size and brightness are not nearly
> as important as being as close as Sirius has been, like perhaps closer
> than 0.01 light year sort of make the case for Sirius.
>
> Where's the insurmountable evidence that entirely eliminates Sirius?
>
> Why are you objecting to Sirius?
>
> "Sirius is 26 times as bright as our sun, according to Pat
> Moore'sastronomy guide.
>
> I believe "26 times" represents the human visual brightness and not the
> actual shifted spectrum energy that's offset by roughly 150 nm towards
> the UV spectrum, that which we hardly perceive squat in terms of
> lumens/watt or whatever visual basis, but diatoms absolutely thrive upon
> such near-UV energy, and nocturnals see just fine and dandy by such
> starlight illumination. Thus essentially the sun never goes down.
>
> "Look I'm no Bush fan, but I fail to see how politics fits into the
> discussion.
>
> Our country has self inflicted the entire world with at least several
> trillion dollars/euros worth of this 9/11 fiasco, of systematically
> dog-wagging, spinning and hyping the hype, of pushing so much
> disinformation-R-us, and of that which isn't over until our fat lady
> sings. You do realise he's planning upon gong nuclear over this global
> energy domination fiasco.
>
> You simply can't blow off those sorts of dollars/euros and of whatever
> humanity that gets in the way at the same time without impacting the
> needs of science and physics research.
>
yeah, you're right on there. W just asked for another 80 some-odd billion
dollars to fight the war for another year.
- Next message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Previous message: Captain!: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- In reply to: Brad Guth: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Next in thread: Brad Guth: "Re: Space Policy Sucks, while there's Life on Venus"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|