Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> 1. Off topic here.
>>
>> 2. It’s not a simple explanation. Asking for one is stupid.
>>
>> 3. Plenty of books on the subject. Need a recommendation?
>
> 1. BBT is in no way off-topic here, imbecile.

Solar system formation isn’t the Big Bang, you goof. The sun wasn’t even
around for the first 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

> Should I seek and repost your earlier posts (2013) about which were the
> topics allowed here and the rules for posting that you did, when you
> were defending yourself from attacks about
> what you posted in your junior years here?
>
> 2. Of course, there is a simple explanation. Only that it will evade your
> reach, even if you live 1 million years, asshole.

Ok, excellent, then you have the simple explanation. Out with it.

>
> 3. I've read about 50 books on these topics, and ALL OF THEM are centered
> in applications of General Relativity, and how to SAVE IT!

The list below? You’re funny if you say that these are ALL “centered” on
GR. Mentioning GR in a late chapter is not being centered on it. And E=mc^2
is not GR, you doofus.

Martin and Shaw for example. Let’s talk bout how that is “centered” on GR.
Page by page if you’d like.

Such a troll. Too much time on your hands.

>
> These are some modern books on these topic, ALL CENTERED IN THE FUCKING
> GR EXTENDED TO INCLUDE BIG BANG AND E=MC2
>
>
> The Expanding Universe : A Primer on Relativistic Cosmology (William D. Heacox)
> Basic Calculus of Planetary Orbits and Interplanetary Flights (Alexander J. Hahn)
> Introduction to the Interstellar Medium (Jonathan P. Williams)
> Space Physics : An Introduction (C. T. Russell, J. G. Luhmann, R. J. Strangeway)
> An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics (Richard Fitzpatrick)
> Modern General Relativity : Black Holes, Gravitational Waves, and Cosmology (Mike Guidry)
> Stars and Stellar Processes (Mike Guidry)
> Astrophysics Processes : The Physics of Astronomical Phenomena (Hale Bradt)
> Astronomy Methods : A Physical Approach to Astronomical Observations (Hale Bradt)
> Understanding the Universe : An Inquiry Approach to Astronomy and the
> Nature of Scientific Research (George Greenstein)
> The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (4th Ed., Jay M. Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
> Test bank The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (5th Ed., Jay M.
> Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
> Advanced Mechanics and General Relativity (Joel Franklin)
> Solar System Dynamics (Carl D. Murray, Stanley F. Dermott)
> Gauge/Gravity Duality : Foundations and Applications (Martin Ammon, Johanna Erdmenger)
> Foundations of Nuclear and Particle Physics (T. William Donnelly, Joseph
> A. Formaggio, Barry R. Holstein, Richard G. Milner, Bernd Surrow)
> Nuclear and Particle Physics : An Introduction (3rd Ed., Brian R. Martin & Graham Shaw)
> Particle Physics at the New Millennium (Byron P. Roe)
> Entropy in Dynamical Systems (Tomasz Downarowicz)
> Nuclear Engineering : A Conceptual Introduction to Nuclear Power (Malcolm Joyce)
> The Dynamics of Heat (Hans U. Fuchs)
> Introduction to Statistical Physics (Silvio R. A. Salinas)
> Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies : A Systematic Approach (Anil Rao)
> To Measure the Sky : An Introduction to Observational Astronomy (Frederick R. Chromey)
> Measuring the Universe : A Multiwavelength Perspective (George H. Rieke)
> The Mechanical Universe : Mechanics and Heat, Advanced Edition (Steven C.
> Frautschi, Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
> Beyond the Mechanical Universe : From Electricity to Modern Physics
> (Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
> Fundamental Planetary Science : Physics, Chemistry and Habitability (Jack
> J. Lissauer, Imke de Pater)
> An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd Ed., Bradley W. Carroll & Dale A. Ostlie)
> Foundations of Astrophysics (Barbara Ryden & Bradley Peterson)
> Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems (Johannes Falnes)
> Astronomy : A Physical Perspective (2nd Ed., Marc L. Kutner)
> Gravity : An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity (James Hartle)
> Astronomy : A Beginner's Guide to the Universe (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
> The Cosmic Perspective Media Update (4th Ed., Jeffrey O. Bennett, Megan
> Donahue, Nicholas Schneider & Mark Voit)
> Astronomy Today (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
> An Introduction to Astrobiology (Iain Gilmour & Mark Sephton)
> Observational Cosmology (Stephen Serjeant)
> Introduction to Cosmology (2nd Ed., Barbara Ryden)
> An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology (Mark HJones & Robert Lambourne)
> An Introduction to the Solar System (Neil McBride & Iain Gilmour)
> Explorations : Stars Galaxies and Planets (1st Ed. Updated, Thomas Arny)
> Explorations : An Introduction to Astronomy (2nd Ed., Thomas Arny)
> Test bank Astronomy : Journey to the Cosmic Frontier (6th Ed., John D. Fix)
>
> You have to access to books written BEFORE 1950, to find something LESS
> CORRUPTED by relativity.
>
> The big move in books started in the '70s, among with black holes and
> dark energy/matter narrative.
>
> Now, probably, 2020+ books include gender choice for celestial bodies,
> just to join the hype.
>
> All fit into the narrative of CORRUPTING real science, fucking satanist relativists.
>
> A fucking, satanic CULT. More and more, as day passes.
>
> And you are an accomplish for this planned destruction of PUBLIC science.
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 6:07:58 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:15:18 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> 1. Off topic here.
> >>
> >> 2. It’s not a simple explanation. Asking for one is stupid.
> >>
> >> 3. Plenty of books on the subject. Need a recommendation?
> >
> > 1. BBT is in no way off-topic here, imbecile.
> Solar system formation isn’t the Big Bang, you goof. The sun wasn’t even
> around for the first 9 billion years after the Big Bang.
> > Should I seek and repost your earlier posts (2013) about which were the
> > topics allowed here and the rules for posting that you did, when you
> > were defending yourself from attacks about
> > what you posted in your junior years here?
> >
> > 2. Of course, there is a simple explanation. Only that it will evade your
> > reach, even if you live 1 million years, asshole.
> Ok, excellent, then you have the simple explanation. Out with it.
> >
> > 3. I've read about 50 books on these topics, and ALL OF THEM are centered
> > in applications of General Relativity, and how to SAVE IT!
> The list below? You’re funny if you say that these are ALL “centered” on
> GR. Mentioning GR in a late chapter is not being centered on it. And E=mc^2
> is not GR, you doofus.
>
> Martin and Shaw for example. Let’s talk bout how that is “centered” on GR.
> Page by page if you’d like.
>
> Such a troll. Too much time on your hands.
> >
> > These are some modern books on these topic, ALL CENTERED IN THE FUCKING
> > GR EXTENDED TO INCLUDE BIG BANG AND E=MC2
> >
> >
> > The Expanding Universe : A Primer on Relativistic Cosmology (William D. Heacox)
> > Basic Calculus of Planetary Orbits and Interplanetary Flights (Alexander J. Hahn)
> > Introduction to the Interstellar Medium (Jonathan P. Williams)
> > Space Physics : An Introduction (C. T. Russell, J. G. Luhmann, R. J. Strangeway)
> > An Introduction to Celestial Mechanics (Richard Fitzpatrick)
> > Modern General Relativity : Black Holes, Gravitational Waves, and Cosmology (Mike Guidry)
> > Stars and Stellar Processes (Mike Guidry)
> > Astrophysics Processes : The Physics of Astronomical Phenomena (Hale Bradt)
> > Astronomy Methods : A Physical Approach to Astronomical Observations (Hale Bradt)
> > Understanding the Universe : An Inquiry Approach to Astronomy and the
> > Nature of Scientific Research (George Greenstein)
> > The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (4th Ed., Jay M. Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
> > Test bank The Cosmos : Astronomy in the New Millennium (5th Ed., Jay M.
> > Pasachoff, Alex Filippenko)
> > Advanced Mechanics and General Relativity (Joel Franklin)
> > Solar System Dynamics (Carl D. Murray, Stanley F. Dermott)
> > Gauge/Gravity Duality : Foundations and Applications (Martin Ammon, Johanna Erdmenger)
> > Foundations of Nuclear and Particle Physics (T. William Donnelly, Joseph
> > A. Formaggio, Barry R. Holstein, Richard G. Milner, Bernd Surrow)
> > Nuclear and Particle Physics : An Introduction (3rd Ed., Brian R. Martin & Graham Shaw)
> > Particle Physics at the New Millennium (Byron P. Roe)
> > Entropy in Dynamical Systems (Tomasz Downarowicz)
> > Nuclear Engineering : A Conceptual Introduction to Nuclear Power (Malcolm Joyce)
> > The Dynamics of Heat (Hans U. Fuchs)
> > Introduction to Statistical Physics (Silvio R. A. Salinas)
> > Dynamics of Particles and Rigid Bodies : A Systematic Approach (Anil Rao)
> > To Measure the Sky : An Introduction to Observational Astronomy (Frederick R. Chromey)
> > Measuring the Universe : A Multiwavelength Perspective (George H. Rieke)
> > The Mechanical Universe : Mechanics and Heat, Advanced Edition (Steven C.
> > Frautschi, Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
> > Beyond the Mechanical Universe : From Electricity to Modern Physics
> > (Richard P. Olenick, Tom M. Apostol, David L. Goodstein)
> > Fundamental Planetary Science : Physics, Chemistry and Habitability (Jack
> > J. Lissauer, Imke de Pater)
> > An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd Ed., Bradley W. Carroll & Dale A. Ostlie)
> > Foundations of Astrophysics (Barbara Ryden & Bradley Peterson)
> > Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems (Johannes Falnes)
> > Astronomy : A Physical Perspective (2nd Ed., Marc L. Kutner)
> > Gravity : An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity (James Hartle)
> > Astronomy : A Beginner's Guide to the Universe (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
> > The Cosmic Perspective Media Update (4th Ed., Jeffrey O. Bennett, Megan
> > Donahue, Nicholas Schneider & Mark Voit)
> > Astronomy Today (5th Ed., Eric Chaisson & Steve McMillan)
> > An Introduction to Astrobiology (Iain Gilmour & Mark Sephton)
> > Observational Cosmology (Stephen Serjeant)
> > Introduction to Cosmology (2nd Ed., Barbara Ryden)
> > An Introduction to Galaxies and Cosmology (Mark HJones & Robert Lambourne)
> > An Introduction to the Solar System (Neil McBride & Iain Gilmour)
> > Explorations : Stars Galaxies and Planets (1st Ed. Updated, Thomas Arny)
> > Explorations : An Introduction to Astronomy (2nd Ed., Thomas Arny)
> > Test bank Astronomy : Journey to the Cosmic Frontier (6th Ed., John D. Fix)
> >
> > You have to access to books written BEFORE 1950, to find something LESS
> > CORRUPTED by relativity.
> >
> > The big move in books started in the '70s, among with black holes and
> > dark energy/matter narrative.
> >
> > Now, probably, 2020+ books include gender choice for celestial bodies,
> > just to join the hype.
> >
> > All fit into the narrative of CORRUPTING real science, fucking satanist relativists.
> >
> > A fucking, satanic CULT. More and more, as day passes.
> >
> > And you are an accomplish for this planned destruction of PUBLIC science.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

You really are the king of the assholes posting here, and also of the realm of drooling imbeciles (Moroney, Dono, etc.).

You CAN'T USE YOUR STUPID NARRATIVE against me, when I calling it a complete bullshit. You are really a retarded, aren't you?

Read yourself, imbecile: "Solar system formation isn’t the Big Bang, you goof. The sun wasn’t even around for the first
9 billion years after the Big Bang."

I reject the MSM timeline of the universe, since the DOT went off, imbecile! You can't use your fucking story to contradict me, when
I'm calling it, entirely, as a pile of crap.

IMBECILE!!!!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> You really are the king of the assholes posting here, and also of the
> realm of drooling imbeciles (Moroney, Dono, etc.).
>
> You CAN'T USE YOUR STUPID NARRATIVE against me, when I calling it a
> complete bullshit. You are really a retarded, aren't you?
>
> Read yourself, imbecile: "Solar system formation isn’t the Big Bang, you
> goof. The sun wasn’t even around for the first
> 9 billion years after the Big Bang."
>
> I reject the MSM timeline of the universe, since the DOT went off,
> imbecile! You can't use your fucking story to contradict me, when
> I'm calling it, entirely, as a pile of crap.
>
> IMBECILE!!!!
>
>

Well, kind sir, since you reject the “narrative” of modern cosmology AND
the “narrative” of stellar formation and evolution, AND since you say you
know the simple explanation of the origin of the solar system, then I guess
it’s your “narrative” to share. Do tell, Mr. Wizard.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > You really are the king of the assholes posting here, and also of the
> > realm of drooling imbeciles (Moroney, Dono, etc.).
> >
> > You CAN'T USE YOUR STUPID NARRATIVE against me, when I calling it a
> > complete bullshit. You are really a retarded, aren't you?
> >
> > Read yourself, imbecile: "Solar system formation isn’t the Big Bang, you
> > goof. The sun wasn’t even around for the first
> > 9 billion years after the Big Bang."
> >
> > I reject the MSM timeline of the universe, since the DOT went off,
> > imbecile! You can't use your fucking story to contradict me, when
> > I'm calling it, entirely, as a pile of crap.
> >
> > IMBECILE!!!!
> >
> >
> Well, kind sir, since you reject the “narrative” of modern cosmology AND
> the “narrative” of stellar formation and evolution, AND since you say you
> know the simple explanation of the origin of the solar system, then I guess
> it’s your “narrative” to share. Do tell, Mr. Wizard.
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Hoyle's universe model, with some corrections to explain CBR. Not difficult at all, specially if you
call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s. The most perfect experiment in the
history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.

Never, ever tried again. But a Nobel was awarded to some imbeciles there.

Corruption in science peaking, while Planck was revolving in his tomb.

On 4/21/2022 2:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 12:40 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>>>> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
>>>
>>> Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems (and when) was created.
>> That is cosmology and astrophysics, not relativity-related. Go to
>> sci.astro or something.
>>> HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
>> Again, cosmology or astrophysics.
>>>
>>> Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
>>>
>>> And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
>> Cosmology or astrophysics or nuclear physics.
>>>
>>> Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5% of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
>> It is not believed matter was ejected from the sun to form planets. But
>> better find a better source than myself for cosmology or astrophysics
>> questions.
>>>
>>> Of course, GR has no answers about this process.
>> Because it is a cosmology or astrophysics issue, not GR.
>>>
>>> BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
>>> to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
>>> PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
>>>
>>> Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
>>>
>>> Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
>>>
>> Please go see a medical professional to deal with your mood disorder
>> meltdowns. Perhaps you need mood stabilizer medication, a medical
>> professional can tell for certain.
>
> I simplified the terms I've used on the previous post: Astrophysics, nuclear physics, cosmology, general relativity, etc.
>
> Moroney and Bodkin: you can try to divert the attention about my main objective here, but you both fail, proving once again that you
> both are a fucking pair of ignorant, indoctrinated trolls/shills.
[snip meltdown]

PLEASE make an appointment with a mental health professional for your
mood disorder meltdowns.

Alternatively, go buy a used Tesla, not to drive, but it appears you'll
need to scavenge all the lithium in its batteries for all the lithium
carbonate mood stabilizer it appears you need.

On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
>>>
>>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
>>>
>>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
>>> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
>>>
>>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
>>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
>>>
>>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
>>> Astronomical Union (IAU).
>>>
>>> The votes are rigged.
>>>
>>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
>>>
>>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
>>> belongs in the trash can.
>>>
>>> you should know dis by now.
>>>
>>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
>>> IAU members, except the big guy.)
>>>
>>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
>>> kill him.
>> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
>> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
>> and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
>
> Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
> Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.
>
[snip meltdown]

Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since
all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared
of objects other than themselves.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
> >>>
> >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
> >>>
> >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
> >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
> >>>
> >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
> >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
> >>>
> >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
> >>> Astronomical Union (IAU).
> >>>
> >>> The votes are rigged.
> >>>
> >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
> >>>
> >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
> >>> belongs in the trash can.
> >>>
> >>> you should know dis by now.
> >>>
> >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
> >>> IAU members, except the big guy.)
> >>>
> >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
> >>> kill him.
> >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
> >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
> >> --
> >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> >> and challenge
> >> the unchallengeable.
> >
> >
> > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
> > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.
> >
> [snip meltdown]
>
> Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since
> all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared
> of objects other than themselves.

Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile.

It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour).

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You really are the king of the assholes posting here, and also of the
>>> realm of drooling imbeciles (Moroney, Dono, etc.).
>>>
>>> You CAN'T USE YOUR STUPID NARRATIVE against me, when I calling it a
>>> complete bullshit. You are really a retarded, aren't you?
>>>
>>> Read yourself, imbecile: "Solar system formation isn’t the Big Bang, you
>>> goof. The sun wasn’t even around for the first
>>> 9 billion years after the Big Bang."
>>>
>>> I reject the MSM timeline of the universe, since the DOT went off,
>>> imbecile! You can't use your fucking story to contradict me, when
>>> I'm calling it, entirely, as a pile of crap.
>>>
>>> IMBECILE!!!!
>>>
>>>
>> Well, kind sir, since you reject the “narrative” of modern cosmology AND
>> the “narrative” of stellar formation and evolution, AND since you say you
>> know the simple explanation of the origin of the solar system, then I guess
>> it’s your “narrative” to share. Do tell, Mr. Wizard.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Hoyle's universe model,

Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
presume. (Look it up.)

> with some corrections to explain CBR.

Such as.

> Not difficult at all,

Do it then, big talker.

> specially if you
> call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.

You don’t get to cherry pick data.

> The most perfect experiment in the
> history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
>
> Never, ever tried again.

Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)

> But a Nobel was awarded to some imbeciles there.
>
> Corruption in science peaking, while Planck was revolving in his tomb.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On 4/21/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Well, kind sir, since you reject the “narrative” of modern cosmology AND
>> the “narrative” of stellar formation and evolution, AND since you say you
>> know the simple explanation of the origin of the solar system, then I guess
>> it’s your “narrative” to share. Do tell, Mr. Wizard.
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Hoyle's universe model, with some corrections to explain CBR. Not difficult at all, specially if you
> call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s. The most perfect experiment in the
> history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.

Sorry, science doesn't let you pick and choose experimental results, and
reject the results you don't like.

What if Galileo's priests got their way?
What if Michelson & Morley decided to ignore their experimental results
of their famous experiment and just abandoned it?
What if scientists of the late 1800s/very early 1900s decided to reject
the experimental results that the speed of light was the same for
everyone? (ok, you'd probably like that, and be happy with the world
being barely out of the horse&buggy era)

On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 05:27:08 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 6:22 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:01:03 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> Well, kind sir, since you reject the “narrative” of modern cosmology AND
> >> the “narrative” of stellar formation and evolution, AND since you say you
> >> know the simple explanation of the origin of the solar system, then I guess
> >> it’s your “narrative” to share. Do tell, Mr. Wizard.
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Hoyle's universe model, with some corrections to explain CBR. Not difficult at all, specially if you
> > call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s. The most perfect experiment in the
> > history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
> Sorry, science doesn't let you pick and choose experimental results, and
> reject the results you don't like.

Sorry, stupid Mike, only such an idiot can believe such an
impudent lie.

Odd Bodkin wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 12:33:30 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> As modern "astronomy" is stuck with the narrative that planets were created
> >> about 4.4 billion years ago, supporting Laplace's nebular theory, two simple
> >> questions arise:
> >>
> >> 1) How old is each planet, since the formation of the Sun (in a form that can
> >> be related to this Sun of our days).
> >>
> >> 2) What happened with the 5th. planet, which should be between Mars and
> >> Jupiter, following the Titius–Bode “Law”?
> >>
> >> Titius pointed out that the mean distance d in astronomical units (AU) from
> >> the Sun to each of the six known planets was approximated by the equation
> >>
> >> d = 0.4 + 0.3 (2ᴷ), where K = −∞, 0, 1, 2, 4, 5
> >>
> >> This empirical law is valid nowadays up to Neptune, as this table shows:
> >>
> >> Planet K Axis (AU) Titius–BodeLaw (AU)
> >> Mercury −∞ 0.39 0.4
> >> Venus 0 0.72 0.7
> >> Earth 1 1.00 1.0
> >> Mars 2 1.52 1.6
> >> ? 3
> >> Jupiter 4 5.20 5.2
> >> Saturn 5 9.54 10.0
> >> Uranus 6 19.18 19.6
> >> Neptune 7 30.06 38.8
> >>
> >> Einstein's theories have a say on this, relativists?
> >
> > Of course, relativists run away when asked how the entire Solar Systems
> > (and when) was created.
> >
> > The Sun is surrounded by about 54 other stellar systems, in a radius of 16.3 light years.
> >
> > As of "today", they are mostly evenly distributed in a spherical volume
> > of 18,000 ly³, which gives about 336 ly³ to each one.
> >
> > In the case of the Solar System, the total mass (as of today) is about
> > 2.1E+33 grams, being the Sun 95% of that amount.
> >
> > About 6 billion years ago, matter was evenly distributed on such volume
> > as H atoms (to start with something above protons).
> >
> > It implied about 30 H atoms/cm³.
> >
> > HOW DID ALL OF THEM CONDENSED INTO A PROTO-SUN, with a spherical radius
> > of 100 AU, and gained ROTATION (momentum)?
> >
> > Atomic gravity, electrical and/or magnetic forces shrank such isotropic
> > distribution into such sphere, that ignited by nuclear fusion?
> >
> > And how much time took such sphere to transform 30% of its composition into Helium?
> >
> > Remember that this stage is very much before any possible ejection of 5%
> > of the mass of the singularity, to form proto-planets and else.
> >
> > Of course, GR has no answers about this process. Not even nuclear
> > astrophysics can explain this.
> >
> > BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW NOTHING, and cosmologists have been mocking at
> > you for 90 years, since the homo Eddington started
> > to play with this and his homo-narrative, about 1922. Only Gamow gave
> > some hints about 1930, but for 90 years YOU HAVE BEEN
> > PLAYED by the parasites that live at your expense, trying to figure how GOD works.
> >
> > Well, everything you've been told IS FALSE, and if you buy it, you are A
> > RETARDED PARTNER IN THE CRIME that modern cosmology is.
> >
> > Like Bodkin and Moroney, for instance. But they don't work on this for
> > free. Fucking paid shill/trolls, without answers at hand.
> >
> >
>
> Nice trolling.
>
> But consider that stellar formation and gas cloud gravitational collapse is
> astrophysics, not really cosmology, and does not GR for a treatment. As
> such, it’s a little off topic here. Perhaps you could take the astrophysics
> question to sci.physics or sci.astronomy or someplace of more general
> physics interest.

Well, this is a Relativity newsgroup...

and you are always pushing...textbooks..

what about
How Einstein Created Relativity out of Physics and Astronomy
https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Created-Relativity-Astronomy-Astrophysics/dp/146144781X
https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Created-Relativity-Astronomy-Astrophysics-ebook-dp-B00A9YH7L2/dp/B00A9YH7L2/ref=mt_other?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

no need to spend over hundreds bucks
the pdf is available for free

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
, <snip>

> > Hoyle's universe model,
> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I presume. (Look it up.)

HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.

> > with some corrections to explain CBR.
> Such as.

Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating in wide spectrum.
Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
> > Not difficult at all,
>
> Do it then, big talker.
> > specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
> You don’t get to cherry pick data
..
> > The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
> >
> > Never, ever tried again.

> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)

That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to support your relativism.

COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed Planck's formula of a black body radiation:

Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):

u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)

Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.

And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
(They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).

WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they were laid-off and the entire international research group was
disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.

NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************

COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe.

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg

END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************

LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >> The Starmaker wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
> > >>>
> > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
> > >>>
> > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
> > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
> > >>>
> > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
> > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
> > >>>
> > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
> > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU).
> > >>>
> > >>> The votes are rigged.
> > >>>
> > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
> > >>>
> > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
> > >>> belongs in the trash can.
> > >>>
> > >>> you should know dis by now.
> > >>>
> > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
> > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.)
> > >>>
> > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
> > >>> kill him.
> > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
> > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
> > >> --
> > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > >> and challenge
> > >> the unchallengeable.
> > >
> > >
> > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
> > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.
> > >
> > [snip meltdown]
> >
> > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since
> > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared
> > of objects other than themselves.
>
> Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile.
>
> It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour).

Jupiter not a planet?

If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth
is not a planet...
since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >> The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
> > > >>>
> > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
> > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
> > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
> > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> The votes are rigged.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
> > > >>> belongs in the trash can.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> you should know dis by now.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
> > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.)
> > > >>>
> > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
> > > >>> kill him.
> > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
> > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
> > > >> --
> > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > >> and challenge
> > > >> the unchallengeable.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
> > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.
> > > >
> > > [snip meltdown]
> > >
> > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since
> > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared
> > > of objects other than themselves.
> >
> > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile.
> >
> > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour).
>
> Jupiter not a planet?
>
> If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth
> is not a planet...
> since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe.

Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto
not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed.

They just made it up.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:21:20 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 8:02:27 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > > On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >> The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)....
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
> > > > >>> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
> > > > >>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
> > > > >>> Astronomical Union (IAU).
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> The votes are rigged.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
> > > > >>> belongs in the trash can.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> you should know dis by now.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
> > > > >>> IAU members, except the big guy.)
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy....they
> > > > >>> kill him.
> > > > >> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
> > > > >> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
> > > > >> --
> > > > >> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> > > > >> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> > > > >> and challenge
> > > > >> the unchallengeable.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
> > > > > Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.
> > > > >
> > > > [snip meltdown]
> > > >
> > > > Let me guess. There are no planets other than Mercury and Venus, since
> > > > all the other "planets" all have moons, so their orbits are not cleared
> > > > of objects other than themselves.
> > >
> > > Read my post, above, with detailed info directly from IAU database, imbecile.
> > >
> > > It's the Apr 20, 2022, 2:39:19 AM post (your local time, mine minus one hour).
> >
> > Jupiter not a planet?
> >
> > If they are going to use 'definitions' to define planet, then the Earth
> > is not a planet...
> > since there ain't anything like it anywhere in the universe.
> Truth is...the word "dwarf planets" was invented when they voted Pluto
> not a planet. Before that, the term "dwarf planets" never existed.
>
> They just made it up.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Ceres, what remains of the 5th. protoplanet in the main asteroid belt, has a mass of about 9.1E+20Kg. This account
for more than 1/3 of the total mass of the main asteroid belt.

This could be a dwarf planet, having about 2/3 the mass of the Moon.

Pluto, instead, has a mass of about 1.3E+22 Kg, which is about 20 times lower than Mercury's mass. Not such a dwarf planet.

Mass (Kg)

Sun 1,99E+30 (MONSTER. 95% of the total mass)

Mercury 3,30E+23 (Einstein's pet planet)
Venus 4,87E+24 (Alien planet. Rotates in the clockwise direction, as viewed from Earth. All others rotate counter-clockwise).
Earth 5,97E+24 (Not a planet. Center of the Universe)
Mars 6,42E+23
Ceres 9.1E+20 (Dwarf?)
Jupiter 1,90E+27 (GIANT)
Saturn 5,68E+26 (GIANT)
Uranus 8,68E+25 (GIANT)
Neptune 1,02E+26 (GIANT)
Pluto 1,31E+22 (Orbit not aligned to the Sun's equatorial plane. Orbit's tilt is about 20° above that plane. Punished for that).

All the planets in the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anticlockwise direction, as viewed from above Earth's North Pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ,
> <snip>
>
>
>>> Hoyle's universe model,
>> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
>> presume. (Look it up.)
>
> HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER
> LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.

Yes, and it’s expanding. Look it up.
It also features spontaneous matter creation without energy conversion.

>
>>> with some corrections to explain CBR.
>> Such as.
>
> Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating in wide spectrum.

Great. Show that this recombination produces a blackbody spectrum. Go
ahead.

> Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced
> EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
>
>>> Not difficult at all,
>>
>> Do it then, big talker.
>>> specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
>> You don’t get to cherry pick data
> .
>>> The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
>>>
>>> Never, ever tried again.
>
>> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)
>
> That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to support your relativism.
>
> COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed
> Planck's formula of a black body radiation:

No, WMAP confirmed it, as well as measuring anisotropies better than COBE.
Which anisotropy matched Big Bang models, by the way, so you’re little
alternative would also need to match.

>
> Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):
>
> u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)
>
> Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ
> and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.
>
> And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the
> most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
> (They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd
> waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).
>
> WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential
> instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
> 10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance
> WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
> on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they
> were laid-off and the entire international research group was
> disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of
> man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
> Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.
>
>
> NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
>
> COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely
> measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic
> microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was
> measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang
> theory of the origin of the universe.
>
> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html
>
> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg
>
> END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
>
>
>
>
>
> LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ,
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> >>> Hoyle's universe model,
> >> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
> >> presume. (Look it up.)
> >
> > HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER
> > LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.
> Yes, and it’s expanding. Look it up.
> It also features spontaneous matter creation without energy conversion.
> >
> >>> with some corrections to explain CBR.
> >> Such as.
> >
> > Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating in wide spectrum.
> Great. Show that this recombination produces a blackbody spectrum. Go
> ahead.
> > Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced
> > EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
> >
> >>> Not difficult at all,
> >>
> >> Do it then, big talker.
> >>> specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
> >> You don’t get to cherry pick data
> > .
> >>> The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
> >>>
> >>> Never, ever tried again.
> >
> >> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)
> >
> > That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to support your relativism.
> >
> > COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed
> > Planck's formula of a black body radiation:
> No, WMAP confirmed it, as well as measuring anisotropies better than COBE..
> Which anisotropy matched Big Bang models, by the way, so you’re little
> alternative would also need to match.
> >
> > Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):
> >
> > u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)
> >
> > Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ
> > and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.
> >
> > And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the
> > most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
> > (They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd
> > waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).
> >
> > WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential
> > instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
> > 10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance
> > WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
> > on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they
> > were laid-off and the entire international research group was
> > disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of
> > man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
> > Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.
> >
> >
> > NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
> >
> > COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely
> > measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic
> > microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was
> > measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang
> > theory of the origin of the universe.
> >
> > https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html
> >
> > https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg
> >
> > END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Look who's talking! (Releases 1 and 2)!

1) Asshole, your brain is degrading at an alarming pace. If it's INFINITE, it can't be EXPANDING! Liar, deceiver!

2) Ignorant!. COBE had FIRAS subsystem, for ABSOLUTE measurement of CBR.
The other two (WMAP and PLANCK) only had instrumentation for RELATIVE DIFFERENCES with internal reference!
Only ONCE, the shameful FIRAS arrangement was used to measure Planck's BBC radiation, as if it was December 1900.

I don't know WHY do you get involved in subjects BEYOND your knowledge and expertise (woodworking).

It's the job of an ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEER to design and understand fully systems like FIRAS.

Stay away of topics like CBR, and keep playing with your stupid Lorentz Transforms. Ask Moroney to join you in the playground!

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ,
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hoyle's universe model,
>>>> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
>>>> presume. (Look it up.)
>>>
>>> HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER
>>> LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.
>> Yes, and it’s expanding. Look it up.
>> It also features spontaneous matter creation without energy conversion.
>>>
>>>>> with some corrections to explain CBR.
>>>> Such as.
>>>
>>> Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating in wide spectrum.
>> Great. Show that this recombination produces a blackbody spectrum. Go
>> ahead.
>>> Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced
>>> EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
>>>
>>>>> Not difficult at all,
>>>>
>>>> Do it then, big talker.
>>>>> specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
>>>> You don’t get to cherry pick data
>>> .
>>>>> The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never, ever tried again.
>>>
>>>> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)
>>>
>>> That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to
>>> support your relativism.
>>>
>>> COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed
>>> Planck's formula of a black body radiation:
>> No, WMAP confirmed it, as well as measuring anisotropies better than COBE.
>> Which anisotropy matched Big Bang models, by the way, so you’re little
>> alternative would also need to match.
>>>
>>> Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):
>>>
>>> u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)
>>>
>>> Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ
>>> and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.
>>>
>>> And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the
>>> most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
>>> (They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd
>>> waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).
>>>
>>> WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential
>>> instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
>>> 10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance
>>> WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
>>> on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they
>>> were laid-off and the entire international research group was
>>> disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of
>>> man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
>>> Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.
>>>
>>>
>>> NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
>>>
>>> COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely
>>> measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic
>>> microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was
>>> measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang
>>> theory of the origin of the universe.
>>>
>>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html
>>>
>>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg
>>>
>>> END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> Look who's talking! (Releases 1 and 2)!
>
> 1) Asshole, your brain is degrading at an alarming pace. If it's
> INFINITE, it can't be EXPANDING! Liar, deceiver!

LOL. Hoyle would disagree. Maybe you should learn what the Hoyle
steady-state theory is before signing up for it.

>
> 2) Ignorant!. COBE had FIRAS subsystem, for ABSOLUTE measurement of CBR.

Yes, indeed. The CBR is the highest precision blackbody spectrum that has
ever been measured.

> The other two (WMAP and PLANCK) only had instrumentation for
> RELATIVE DIFFERENCES with internal reference!

Well, there is benchmarking that WMAP has to do, which is a spectrum
measurement in itself, but the anisotropies are its main mission.

> Only ONCE, the shameful FIRAS arrangement was used to measure
> Planck's BBC radiation, as if it was December 1900.

Using unsubstantiated propaganda adjectives like “shameful” means nothing.

>
> I don't know WHY do you get involved in subjects BEYOND your knowledge
> and expertise (woodworking).
>
> It's the job of an ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEER to design and
> understand fully systems like FIRAS.

And of course the physicists’ presence on the project was completely
irrelevant. In fact, the EEs proposed the experiment and analyzed the data
and published the results, didn’t they?

>
> Stay away of topics like CBR, and keep playing with your stupid Lorentz
> Transforms. Ask Moroney to join you in the playground!
>
>
>
>
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:28:44 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> ,
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> Hoyle's universe model,
> >>>> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
> >>>> presume. (Look it up.)
> >>>
> >>> HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER
> >>> LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.
> >> Yes, and it’s expanding. Look it up.
> >> It also features spontaneous matter creation without energy conversion..
> >>>
> >>>>> with some corrections to explain CBR.
> >>>> Such as.
> >>>
> >>> Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating in wide spectrum.
> >> Great. Show that this recombination produces a blackbody spectrum. Go
> >> ahead.
> >>> Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced
> >>> EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
> >>>
> >>>>> Not difficult at all,
> >>>>
> >>>> Do it then, big talker.
> >>>>> specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
> >>>> You don’t get to cherry pick data
> >>> .
> >>>>> The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Never, ever tried again.
> >>>
> >>>> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)
> >>>
> >>> That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to
> >>> support your relativism.
> >>>
> >>> COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed
> >>> Planck's formula of a black body radiation:
> >> No, WMAP confirmed it, as well as measuring anisotropies better than COBE.
> >> Which anisotropy matched Big Bang models, by the way, so you’re little
> >> alternative would also need to match.
> >>>
> >>> Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):
> >>>
> >>> u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)
> >>>
> >>> Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ
> >>> and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.
> >>>
> >>> And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the
> >>> most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
> >>> (They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd
> >>> waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).
> >>>
> >>> WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential
> >>> instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
> >>> 10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance
> >>> WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
> >>> on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they
> >>> were laid-off and the entire international research group was
> >>> disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of
> >>> man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
> >>> Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
> >>>
> >>> COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely
> >>> measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic
> >>> microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was
> >>> measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang
> >>> theory of the origin of the universe.
> >>>
> >>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html
> >>>
> >>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg
> >>>
> >>> END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> > Look who's talking! (Releases 1 and 2)!
> >
> > 1) Asshole, your brain is degrading at an alarming pace. If it's
> > INFINITE, it can't be EXPANDING! Liar, deceiver!
> LOL. Hoyle would disagree. Maybe you should learn what the Hoyle
> steady-state theory is before signing up for it.
> >
> > 2) Ignorant!. COBE had FIRAS subsystem, for ABSOLUTE measurement of CBR..
> Yes, indeed. The CBR is the highest precision blackbody spectrum that has
> ever been measured.
> > The other two (WMAP and PLANCK) only had instrumentation for
> > RELATIVE DIFFERENCES with internal reference!
> Well, there is benchmarking that WMAP has to do, which is a spectrum
> measurement in itself, but the anisotropies are its main mission.
> > Only ONCE, the shameful FIRAS arrangement was used to measure
> > Planck's BBC radiation, as if it was December 1900.
> Using unsubstantiated propaganda adjectives like “shameful” means nothing.
> >
> > I don't know WHY do you get involved in subjects BEYOND your knowledge
> > and expertise (woodworking).
> >
> > It's the job of an ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEER to design and
> > understand fully systems like FIRAS.
> And of course the physicists’ presence on the project was completely
> irrelevant. In fact, the EEs proposed the experiment and analyzed the data
> and published the results, didn’t they?
> >
> > Stay away of topics like CBR, and keep playing with your stupid Lorentz
> > Transforms. Ask Moroney to join you in the playground!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Woodworker, you don't have ANY IDEA of what a R&D Engineer means (doing exactly that: Research and Development).

Poor Moroney, working his entire life as a technician, can't help you either in order to understand.

R&D Engineers work at research facilities WITHIN defense corporations (MIC) or within top of the top R&D facilities within
major corporations that provide the CORE of subsystems for enterprise and consumer electronics.

These facilities (former BellLabs, IBM, Raytheon, Hughes, GE, Westinghouse, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc.) are absolutely
PRIVATE facilities that are focused on PROFIT, not science (which is a mean to profits).

When a public (academic based) organization, which includes NASA, ESA, etc., need something like an entire system or a
subsystem of WHATEVER, they write the general specs and assign a CONTRACT to the private R&D center. The specs mainly
are a WISH LIST of objectives to be delivered by the system/subsystem they HAVE TO outsource.

Then, when a DIRECT contract is awarded, it's the job of R&D engineers to establish which goals can be achieved or not, which
fields need to be directly involved into the project (mechanics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, mathematics, etc.), so they ensamble
a multidisciplinary team, which cross-fertilize, in order to go from zero to the final production.

As these systems/subsystems are usually complex to develop and build, a SYSTEMIC APPROACH is designed to compartmentalize
the project and to keep tight control of the phases, using SW based control tools (GANT like procedures).

Physicists alone CAN'T manage this complex web of threads, because they lack background to make it. The bidders participate in
different stages of the project, but have no VETO POWER. They only can have a word once the system is delivered to them.

In USA, at least, this has been the MO for more than 100 years, since RCA, AT&T, GE, Westinghouse, etc, by WWI times.

READ HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

For instance, with the Space Shuttle, Rockwell was assigned the project ENTIRELY. Rockwell managed a complex web of more than
1,500 subcontractors, each one having an specific job.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:28:44 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> ,
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hoyle's universe model,
>>>>>> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
>>>>>> presume. (Look it up.)
>>>>>
>>>>> HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER
>>>>> LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.
>>>> Yes, and it’s expanding. Look it up.
>>>> It also features spontaneous matter creation without energy conversion.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> with some corrections to explain CBR.
>>>>>> Such as.
>>>>>
>>>>> Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating
>>>>> in wide spectrum.
>>>> Great. Show that this recombination produces
>>>>> a blackbody spectrum. Go
>>>> ahead.
>>>>> Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced
>>>>> EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not difficult at all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do it then, big talker.
>>>>>>> specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
>>>>>> You don’t get to cherry pick data
>>>>> .
>>>>>>> The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never, ever tried again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to
>>>>> support your relativism.
>>>>>
>>>>> COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed
>>>>> Planck's formula of a black body radiation:
>>>> No, WMAP confirmed it, as well as measuring anisotropies better than COBE.
>>>> Which anisotropy matched Big Bang models, by the way, so you’re little
>>>> alternative would also need to match.
>>>>>
>>>>> Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):
>>>>>
>>>>> u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)
>>>>>
>>>>> Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ
>>>>> and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.
>>>>>
>>>>> And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the
>>>>> most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
>>>>> (They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd
>>>>> waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).
>>>>>
>>>>> WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential
>>>>> instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
>>>>> 10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance
>>>>> WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
>>>>> on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they
>>>>> were laid-off and the entire international research group was
>>>>> disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of
>>>>> man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
>>>>> Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
>>>>>
>>>>> COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely
>>>>> measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic
>>>>> microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was
>>>>> measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang
>>>>> theory of the origin of the universe.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html
>>>>>
>>>>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg
>>>>>
>>>>> END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>
>>>
>>> Look who's talking! (Releases 1 and 2)!
>>>
>>> 1) Asshole, your brain is degrading at an alarming pace. If it's
>>> INFINITE, it can't be EXPANDING! Liar, deceiver!
>> LOL. Hoyle would disagree. Maybe you should learn what the Hoyle
>> steady-state theory is before signing up for it.
>>>
>>> 2) Ignorant!. COBE had FIRAS subsystem, for ABSOLUTE measurement of CBR.
>> Yes, indeed. The CBR is the highest precision blackbody spectrum that has
>> ever been measured.
>>> The other two (WMAP and PLANCK) only had instrumentation for
>>> RELATIVE DIFFERENCES with internal reference!
>> Well, there is benchmarking that WMAP has to do, which is a spectrum
>> measurement in itself, but the anisotropies are its main mission.
>>> Only ONCE, the shameful FIRAS arrangement was used to measure
>>> Planck's BBC radiation, as if it was December 1900.
>> Using unsubstantiated propaganda adjectives like “shameful” means nothing.
>>>
>>> I don't know WHY do you get involved in subjects BEYOND your knowledge
>>> and expertise (woodworking).
>>>
>>> It's the job of an ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEER to design and
>>> understand fully systems like FIRAS.
>> And of course the physicists’ presence on the project was completely
>> irrelevant. In fact, the EEs proposed the experiment and analyzed the data
>> and published the results, didn’t they?
>>>
>>> Stay away of topics like CBR, and keep playing with your stupid Lorentz
>>> Transforms. Ask Moroney to join you in the playground!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
> Woodworker, you don't have ANY IDEA of what a R&D Engineer means (doing
> exactly that: Research and Development).
>
> Poor Moroney, working his entire life as a technician, can't help you
> either in order to understand.
>
> R&D Engineers work at research facilities WITHIN defense corporations
> (MIC) or within top of the top R&D facilities within
> major corporations that provide the CORE of subsystems for enterprise and
> consumer electronics.
>
> These facilities (former BellLabs, IBM, Raytheon, Hughes, GE,
> Westinghouse, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc.) are absolutely
> PRIVATE facilities that are focused on PROFIT, not science (which is a mean to profits).
>
> When a public (academic based) organization, which includes NASA, ESA,
> etc., need something like an entire system or a
> subsystem of WHATEVER, they write the general specs and assign a CONTRACT
> to the private R&D center. The specs mainly
> are a WISH LIST of objectives to be delivered by the system/subsystem
> they HAVE TO outsource.
>
> Then, when a DIRECT contract is awarded, it's the job of R&D engineers to
> establish which goals can be achieved or not, which
> fields need to be directly involved into the project (mechanics,
> chemistry, metallurgy, physics, mathematics, etc.), so they ensamble
> a multidisciplinary team, which cross-fertilize, in order to go from zero
> to the final production.
>
> As these systems/subsystems are usually complex to develop and build, a
> SYSTEMIC APPROACH is designed to compartmentalize
> the project and to keep tight control of the phases, using SW based
> control tools (GANT like procedures).
>
> Physicists alone CAN'T manage this complex web of threads, because they
> lack background to make it.

On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 20:15:20 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 1:28:44 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 9:10:05 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:26:38 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> ,
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hoyle's universe model,
> >>>>>> Hoyle’s model supported an expanding universe. You’re ok with that, I
> >>>>>> presume. (Look it up.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> HOYLE'S UNIVERSE MODEL IS BASED ON A PSEUDO-STATIC, INFINITE, EVER
> >>>>> LASTING UNIVERSE, asshole.
> >>>> Yes, and it’s expanding. Look it up.
> >>>> It also features spontaneous matter creation without energy conversion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> with some corrections to explain CBR.
> >>>>>> Such as.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Permanent recombination of elementary particles EVERYWHERE, radiating
> >>>>> in wide spectrum.
> >>>> Great. Show that this recombination produces
> >>>>> a blackbody spectrum. Go
> >>>> ahead.
> >>>>> Don't you know that CBR HAS NOT AN SPECIFIC RADIUS? It's being produced
> >>>>> EVERYWHERE in the universe, with no frontiers, ASSHOLE.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not difficult at all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Do it then, big talker.
> >>>>>>> specially if you call off the shitty experiment of COBE satellite in the '90s.
> >>>>>> You don’t get to cherry pick data
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>>> The most perfect experiment in the history of physics, NASA assholes said by then.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Never, ever tried again.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Ever heard of WMAP? (Of course not.)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's why are an ignorant, liar and deceiver. You need be so, to
> >>>>> support your relativism.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> COBE was the ONLY probe ever launched (1989) to prove that CBR followed
> >>>>> Planck's formula of a black body radiation:
> >>>> No, WMAP confirmed it, as well as measuring anisotropies better than COBE.
> >>>> Which anisotropy matched Big Bang models, by the way, so you’re little
> >>>> alternative would also need to match.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Energy distribution law is (in units Joule/m³/Hz):
> >>>>>
> >>>>> u = (8πhʋ³)/c³ . 1/(e^(hʋ/kT)-1)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Note: u is the density of the energy (in the frequency range between ʋ
> >>>>> and ʋ + dʋ in a black body radiation at an absolute temperature T.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And NASA celebrated, years after, the validation of this equation as the
> >>>>> most accurate experiment ever made in the history of physics.
> >>>>> (They had to. Otherwise, the 300 million USD would have been an absurd
> >>>>> waste, a theft of money -- IT WAS).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> WMAP (2002) didn't attempt to redo COBE, as it was based on differential
> >>>>> instrumentation, to show anisotropies in temperature (FAKE).
> >>>>> 10 years after, PLANCK proble was launched by ESA, supposedly to enhance
> >>>>> WMAP results by 100 times. More than 8,000 persons worked
> >>>>> on the data processing of PLANCK'S probe for 5 years, after which they
> >>>>> were laid-off and the entire international research group was
> >>>>> disbanded and data was stored and forgotten, because the millions of
> >>>>> man-hours invested proved to be completely useless.
> >>>>> Never again such stupid experiments were planned, neither at NASA or ESA.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
> >>>>>
> >>>>> COBE revolutionized our understanding of the early cosmos. It precisely
> >>>>> measured and mapped the oldest light in the universe -- the cosmic
> >>>>> microwave background. The cosmic microwave background spectrum was
> >>>>> measured with a precision of 0.005%. The results confirmed the Big Bang
> >>>>> theory of the origin of the universe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/firas_image.html
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/cobe/cobe_images/firas_spectrum.jpg
> >>>>>
> >>>>> END NASA PROPAGANDA ********************************
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> LEARN, THINK, REPROGRAM YOUR FUCKING BRAIN, BODKIN. IT'S NOT TOO LATE FOR YOU.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Look who's talking! (Releases 1 and 2)!
> >>>
> >>> 1) Asshole, your brain is degrading at an alarming pace. If it's
> >>> INFINITE, it can't be EXPANDING! Liar, deceiver!
> >> LOL. Hoyle would disagree. Maybe you should learn what the Hoyle
> >> steady-state theory is before signing up for it.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Ignorant!. COBE had FIRAS subsystem, for ABSOLUTE measurement of CBR.
> >> Yes, indeed. The CBR is the highest precision blackbody spectrum that has
> >> ever been measured.
> >>> The other two (WMAP and PLANCK) only had instrumentation for
> >>> RELATIVE DIFFERENCES with internal reference!
> >> Well, there is benchmarking that WMAP has to do, which is a spectrum
> >> measurement in itself, but the anisotropies are its main mission.
> >>> Only ONCE, the shameful FIRAS arrangement was used to measure
> >>> Planck's BBC radiation, as if it was December 1900.
> >> Using unsubstantiated propaganda adjectives like “shameful” means nothing.
> >>>
> >>> I don't know WHY do you get involved in subjects BEYOND your knowledge
> >>> and expertise (woodworking).
> >>>
> >>> It's the job of an ELECTRICAL/ELECTRONIC ENGINEER to design and
> >>> understand fully systems like FIRAS.
> >> And of course the physicists’ presence on the project was completely
> >> irrelevant. In fact, the EEs proposed the experiment and analyzed the data
> >> and published the results, didn’t they?
> >>>
> >>> Stay away of topics like CBR, and keep playing with your stupid Lorentz
> >>> Transforms. Ask Moroney to join you in the playground!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > Woodworker, you don't have ANY IDEA of what a R&D Engineer means (doing
> > exactly that: Research and Development).
> >
> > Poor Moroney, working his entire life as a technician, can't help you
> > either in order to understand.
> >
> > R&D Engineers work at research facilities WITHIN defense corporations
> > (MIC) or within top of the top R&D facilities within
> > major corporations that provide the CORE of subsystems for enterprise and
> > consumer electronics.
> >
> > These facilities (former BellLabs, IBM, Raytheon, Hughes, GE,
> > Westinghouse, Boeing, General Dynamics, etc.) are absolutely
> > PRIVATE facilities that are focused on PROFIT, not science (which is a mean to profits).
> >
> > When a public (academic based) organization, which includes NASA, ESA,
> > etc., need something like an entire system or a
> > subsystem of WHATEVER, they write the general specs and assign a CONTRACT
> > to the private R&D center. The specs mainly
> > are a WISH LIST of objectives to be delivered by the system/subsystem
> > they HAVE TO outsource.
> >
> > Then, when a DIRECT contract is awarded, it's the job of R&D engineers to
> > establish which goals can be achieved or not, which
> > fields need to be directly involved into the project (mechanics,
> > chemistry, metallurgy, physics, mathematics, etc.), so they ensamble
> > a multidisciplinary team, which cross-fertilize, in order to go from zero
> > to the final production.
> >
> > As these systems/subsystems are usually complex to develop and build, a
> > SYSTEMIC APPROACH is designed to compartmentalize
> > the project and to keep tight control of the phases, using SW based
> > control tools (GANT like procedures).
> >
> > Physicists alone CAN'T manage this complex web of threads, because they
> > lack background to make it.
> I have no intention of dismissing the importance and value of engineers in
> large scale scientific ventures. They are important collaborators.
>
> And unless you have an anger-fueled complex about physicists, then I see no
> reason for you to dismiss the important and value of physicists in those
> collaborations.

On 4/22/2022 3:01 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Ceres, what remains of the 5th. protoplanet in the main asteroid belt, has a mass of about 9.1E+20Kg. This account
> for more than 1/3 of the total mass of the main asteroid belt.
>
> This could be a dwarf planet, having about 2/3 the mass of the Moon.

No. About 1/78 the mass of the moon.
>
> Pluto, instead, has a mass of about 1.3E+22 Kg, which is about 20 times lower than Mercury's mass. Not such a dwarf planet.
>
> Mass (Kg)
>
> Sun 1,99E+30 (MONSTER. 95% of the total mass)

More than that.
>
> Mercury 3,30E+23 (Einstein's pet planet)
> Venus 4,87E+24 (Alien planet. Rotates in the clockwise direction, as viewed from Earth. All others rotate counter-clockwise).
> Earth 5,97E+24 (Not a planet. Center of the Universe)
> Mars 6,42E+23
> Ceres 9.1E+20 (Dwarf?)
> Jupiter 1,90E+27 (GIANT)
> Saturn 5,68E+26 (GIANT)
> Uranus 8,68E+25 (GIANT)
> Neptune 1,02E+26 (GIANT)
> Pluto 1,31E+22 (Orbit not aligned to the Sun's equatorial plane. Orbit's tilt is about 20° above that plane. Punished for that).

No, it had not cleared its orbit.

Just before the "demotion", astronomers discovered one or two nearly
Pluto-sized Kuiper belt Trans-Neptunian Objects. When they realized
that Pluto was itself a Kuiper Belt object, as possibly was Neptune's
moon Triton a former Kuiper Belt object, they realized there could be
dozens to possibly thousands of objects as large or larger than Pluto,
and therefore just as worthy as being a planet as Pluto, they decided to
have mercy on millions of future elementary school students and created
a new category of "dwarf planets" so they wouldn't have to memorize
dozens or hundreds of planet names.

So far, only one, Eris (as well as Triton) are known to be more massive
than Pluto. As many as 130 objects are "probably" dwarf planets by being
in hydrostatic equilibrium according to astronomer Mike Brown who
studies those things.

Not the first time that happened. Ceres itself was once considered a
planet and even has an astrological sign.

Question: Should Eris, slightly larger than Pluto, be a planet if Pluto
is a planet? If no, why not?
>
> All the planets in the Solar System orbit the Sun in an anticlockwise direction, as viewed from above Earth's North Pole. Most planets also rotate on their axes in an anti-clockwise direction, but Venus rotates clockwise in retrograde rotation once every 243 Earth days—the slowest rotation of any planet.

What about Uranus, which rotates sideways?
>
>

On 4/20/2022 2:17 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:54:28 PM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>
>>> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Officially, according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU), the Solar System comprises:
>>>
>>> Not according with the International Astronomical Union (IAU)...
>>>
>>> All of it's members (IAU) do not agree with with findings of the
>>> International Astronomical Union (IAU).
>>>
>>> Those members (IAU) who disagree are not allowed to vote on the
>>> findings, so the findings are fraudalent.
>>>
>>> It is one or two that make the findings at the International
>>> Astronomical Union (IAU).
>>>
>>> The votes are rigged.
>>>
>>> In otherwords, whatever the big guy sez ...goes.
>>>
>>> It's a garbage union. Anything that comes out of it is...garbage, and
>>> belongs in the trash can.
>>>
>>> you should know dis by now.
>>>
>>> There is no one here that would disagree with that (including all of the
>>> IAU members, except the big guy.)
>>>
>>> In the Italian Mafia, if the members disagree with the big guy...they
>>> kill him.
>> The question you should be asking is not what happened to the fifth
>> planet....but what happened to the nineth planet? (if you dare)
>> --
>> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
>> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
>> and challenge
>> the unchallengeable.
>
>
> Whit this criteria, Jupiter should not be demoted as a planet anymore. TheTrojan cloud, asteroids that occupy more than 20% of the
> Jupiter’s orbital path, following the giant, should be enough reason.
>
> ****************************************
> The International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded the status of Pluto to that of a dwarf planet because it did not meet the three criteria the IAU uses to define a full-sized planet. Essentially Pluto meets all the criteria except one—it “has not cleared its neighboring region of other objects.”Nov 19, 2019
> **************************
>
> Ever wondered why Pluto is no longer a planet?
> As we approach an international holiday known as Pluto Demoted Day, an expert explains why the dwarf planet is still super cool.
> Image without a caption
> By Jason Bittel
> August 23, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. EDT
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/kidspost/pluto-not-a-planet/2021/08/23/ae8fd57c-fbb8-11eb-8a67-f14cd1d28e47_story.html
>
> "When your parents were kids, Pluto was actually considered a planet. But 15 years ago, a group of scientists known as the International Astronomical Union voted to make the definition of “planets” more specific, and Pluto no longer made the cut. According to the IAU, Pluto is technically a “dwarf planet,” because it has not “cleared its neighboring region of other objects.” This means that Pluto still has lots of asteroids and other space rocks along its flight path, rather than having absorbed them over time, like the larger planets have done."
>
> ****************************************
>
> Mafia? And Ceres, in the Main asteroid belt?
>
> Einstenian mafia, pure and simple. They don't dare to apply GR 200+ equations beyond Mercury, because all
> of them are relativistic FAGGOTS, like Moroney (and I have some doubts about Bodkin, in this particular sense.)

Another meltdown coming on?

They have calculated orbital precession as far as Mars. However, Venus'
orbit is nearly circular, plus further from the sun, both reduce the GR
precession. Earth also has a near circular orbit and is even farther
from the sun. Mars is even farther out but less circular.

If you can handle the math, why not calculate GR's predictions for
precession for all the planets
>

On 4/22/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

> Woodworker, you don't have ANY IDEA of what a R&D Engineer means (doing exactly that: Research and Development).
[snip wailing and screaming]

Careful, Odd, Richard is about to have another of his OCD related meltdowns.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 1:07 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> Woodworker, you don't have ANY IDEA of what a R&D Engineer means (doing
>> exactly that: Research and Development).
> [snip wailing and screaming]
>
> Careful, Odd, Richard is about to have another of his OCD related meltdowns.
>

I’ve been watching the corner of one of his eyes twitching uncontrollably
for days now.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables