|
Post by acidohm on Jun 4, 2015 17:31:55 GMT
Everything wobbles. Don't need arithmetic to know that. My wife's glare is rock steady at times! I alway deserve it
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Jun 5, 2015 12:58:19 GMT
[Snip ] My wife's glare is rock steady at times! I alway deserve it Especially if your proof reading skills leave something to be desired .....
|
|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jun 5, 2015 14:47:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 4:54:58 GMT
It is instructive to read from the beginning of this thread. It should be called fugue. Interesting that it turned out you either have brain damage or you a liar. Since you are able to contemplate the meaning of fugue it seems you are just a liar. For the record: In 2008 you were told it is well known the sun wobbles. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/258/epitrochoid-orbits-barycentersThere is no real debate whether the Sun orbits the solar system barycenter, it does so according to basic laws of gravity. The value you mention is slightly incorrect, the Sun can wander up tp ~2.2 solar radii from the solar system barycenter, not 2 solar diameters. The barycenter is there and so is the varing orbital velocity. This velocity is, however, always quite small (~walking pace) . The Sun is in free fall, so it does not feel inertia forces. You are confusing this with tidal effects, which is something else. The tidal effects are also vanishingly small. The wobble of other stars as well as ours is well known, nothing new. As mentioned there is no controversy over whether the sun orbits the barycenter. The debate has been focused on whether the Sun's orbital movements are related to solar activity. It is difficult to find a physical model explaining such a relation. In 2013 you repeated your stupid claim that astronomers are clueless It always amazes me that astronomers will identify stars with planetary systems by detecting a doppler shift due to the star's 'wobble' caused by the star actually orbiting a barycenter not just spinning on its own axis -- yet those same astronomers will deny that the Sun has any wobble In 2015 you repeated your stupid claim that astronomers are clueless Astronomers identify stars that have planets by their 'wobble' induced by the planets orbiting them. Then when it comes to our own local star insist that it does not wobble. They do not appear to grasp the dissonance. Andrew, here is yet another statement you made to Nautonnier, "Interesting that it turned out you either have brain damage or you a liar. Since you are able to contemplate the meaning of fugue it seems you are just a liar."Now, if you continue to insult members of this board by calling them 'liars' as you have several members, including myself, you will get no response or respect and it will lead to you being banned from this board. Cease with your negative, rude name-calling. There is no need for you to assume, presume and engage in immature insulting of members to be heard. If you cannot make your points, or discuss without insulting others Andrew, then you did not have a point to begin with in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 5:05:47 GMT
Interesting that it turned out you either have brain damage or you a liar. Since you are able to contemplate the meaning of fugue it seems you are just a liar. For the record: In 2008 you were told it is well known the sun wobbles. solarcycle24com.proboards.com/thread/258/epitrochoid-orbits-barycentersIn 2013 you repeated your stupid claim that astronomers are clueless In 2015 you repeated your stupid claim that astronomers are clueless Andrew, here is yet another statement you made to Nautonnier, "Interesting that it turned out you either have brain damage or you a liar. Since you are able to contemplate the meaning of fugue it seems you are just a liar."Now, if you continue to insult members of this board by calling them 'liars' as you have several members, including myself, you will get no response or respect and it will lead to you being banned from this board. Cease with your negative, rude name-calling. There is no need for you to assume, presume and engage in immature insulting of members to be heard. If you cannot make your points, or discuss without insulting others Andrew, then you did not have a point to begin with in the first place. Theo It is fairly evident that you either have brain damage or you are a liar. Are you ever going to explain why you are falsely claiming modern physics does not realise the Sun wobbles?
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jun 6, 2015 8:47:19 GMT
Andrew the dialog is shut down under the assault from you.
I don't agree with quite a lot discussed but the references are mostly interesting, intelligent people with some time to consider their experiences relative to a massive block of generally open data, the internet, has allowed a multitude of interesting views often unconstrained by training and mostly unconstrained by strictures of institutions academic or not.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 6, 2015 8:51:15 GMT
Andrew the dialog is shut down under the assault from you. I don't agree with quite a lot discussed but the references are mostly interesting, intelligent people with some time to consider their experiences relative to a massive block of generally open data, the internet, has allowed a multitude of interesting views often unconstrained by training and mostly unconstrained by strictures of institutions academic or not. The dialogue was shut down by the assault of Icefisher who did his best to divert attention from Nautonniers claim that Leif Svalbaard is stupid. As it happens Theo is also making the same stupid claim. As it happens both Theo and Icefisher have a major problem with the basic greenhouse theory.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jun 6, 2015 12:33:40 GMT
Andrew the dialog is shut down under the assault from you. I don't agree with quite a lot discussed but the references are mostly interesting, intelligent people with some time to consider their experiences relative to a massive block of generally open data, the internet, has allowed a multitude of interesting views often unconstrained by training and mostly unconstrained by strictures of institutions academic or not. The dialogue was shut down by the assault of Icefisher who did his best to divert attention from Nautonniers claim that Leif Svalbaard is stupid. As it happens Theo is also making the same stupid claim. As it happens both Theo and Icefisher have a major problem with the basic greenhouse theory. Here we go again. It is you Andrew who has the problem with the greenhouse theory, and not icefisher or me. You know, who is the liar here in fact?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 6, 2015 12:44:49 GMT
The dialogue was shut down by the assault of Icefisher who did his best to divert attention from Nautonniers claim that Leif Svalbaard is stupid. As it happens Theo is also making the same stupid claim. As it happens both Theo and Icefisher have a major problem with the basic greenhouse theory. Here we go again. It is you Andrew who has the problem with the greenhouse theory, and not icefisher or me. You know, who is the liar here in fact? I think Andrew must know alot about greenhouse theory seeing as he is full of hot air..............
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 6, 2015 13:33:00 GMT
I am trying to figure out what Andrew was posting about. Still haven't figured it out. I know his abusive posting habits muddle the bay watch show.
Should just stick to watching volleyball perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 6, 2015 14:44:31 GMT
I am trying to figure out what Andrew was posting about. Still haven't figured it out. I know his abusive posting habits muddle the bay watch show. Should just stick to watching volleyball perhaps? I'm sure it's all about wobbling...ah...wait a sec....
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jun 15, 2015 6:39:34 GMT
I am trying to figure out what Andrew was posting about. Still haven't figured it out. I know his abusive posting habits muddle the bay watch show. Should just stick to watching volleyball perhaps? Do you pretend to be stupid just to bait people?
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jun 15, 2015 8:15:41 GMT
I think Sigurdur is just pointing out that the level of intensity in these barycenter discussions is a bit greater then that in previous ones.....and maybe a bit of lighthearted humour wouldn't go amiss!
|
|