On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 21:39:53 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@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.

Or rather, you've been fabricating and lying, as expected
from a relativistic stinker.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:15:20 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

> > 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.

> That’s a fine example of *technology*, not science.

See? You never give up being an imbecile, IKEA man.

Every single branch of physics (EVERY ONE) was involved in that giant project.

For instance, physics of the sound married with mechanics. Do you know why?
Thermodynamics married with chemistry. Do you know why?
Newtonian mechanics (for motion and gravitational law) at its fullest.
Electromagnetism married with optical physics. Do you know why?
Etc, etc.

The only absent was the pseudoscience of relativity.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> That’s a fine example of *technology*, not science.
>
> See? You never give up being an imbecile, IKEA man.
> Every single branch of physics (EVERY ONE) was involved in that giant
> project.
> For instance, physics of the sound married with mechanics. Do you know
> why? Thermodynamics married with chemistry. Do you know why? Newtonian
> mechanics (for motion and gravitational law) at its fullest.
> Electromagnetism married with optical physics. Do you know why?
> Etc, etc. The only absent was the pseudoscience of relativity.

that's called *multi_physics* an enormous branch of Math Modeling and
Scientific Computation. About a 90% of what is done in universities.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:10:51 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

> What about Uranus, which rotates sideways?

Maybe your expertise by being a frequent client of gay bars is fooling your head.

Besides, fact-check the stupidity about the mass of Ceres that you posted, ignorant pretender. Drop Wikipedia!

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/by-the-numbers/

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:07:31 PM UTC-3, Kye Egonidis wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> >> That’s a fine example of *technology*, not science.
> >
> > See? You never give up being an imbecile, IKEA man.
> > Every single branch of physics (EVERY ONE) was involved in that giant
> > project.
> > For instance, physics of the sound married with mechanics. Do you know
> > why? Thermodynamics married with chemistry. Do you know why? Newtonian
> > mechanics (for motion and gravitational law) at its fullest.
> > Electromagnetism married with optical physics. Do you know why?
> > Etc, etc. The only absent was the pseudoscience of relativity.
> that's called *multi_physics* an enormous branch of Math Modeling and
> Scientific Computation. About a 90% of what is done in universities.

Yeah, 90% done at universities!

Like multi-billion project like LIGO, CERN LHC, Hubble's telescope, etc.

From which planet did you say that you came?
Anyway, you fit very well with Bodkin and Moroney. Wellcome.

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:15:20 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> 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.
>
>> That’s a fine example of *technology*, not science.
>
> See? You never give up being an imbecile, IKEA man.
>
> Every single branch of physics (EVERY ONE) was involved in that giant project.

It’s still a TECHNOLOGY project, not a science project.
Yes, science is used in technology, and technology is used in pursuit of
science.
But science and technology are not the same things. Just because they have
contact with each other doesn’t make them the same thing.

>
> For instance, physics of the sound married with mechanics. Do you know why?
> Thermodynamics married with chemistry. Do you know why?
> Newtonian mechanics (for motion and gravitational law) at its fullest.
> Electromagnetism married with optical physics. Do you know why?
> Etc, etc.
>
> The only absent was the pseudoscience of relativity.
>

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

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> > For instance, physics of the sound married with mechanics. Do you
>> > know why? Thermodynamics married with chemistry. Do you know why?
>> > Newtonian mechanics (for motion and gravitational law) at its
>> > fullest. Electromagnetism married with optical physics. Do you know
>> > why?
>> > Etc, etc. The only absent was the pseudoscience of relativity.
>> that's called *multi_physics* an enormous branch of Math Modeling and
>> Scientific Computation. About a 90% of what is done in universities.
>
> Yeah, 90% done at universities!
> Like multi-billion project like LIGO, CERN LHC, Hubble's telescope, etc.
> From which planet did you say that you came?
> Anyway, you fit very well with Bodkin and Moroney. Wellcome.

you can't even find a science branch in university not dealing with
multi_physics. Your PhD final thesis you defend is based on multi_physics.
Lab research content is about a 10%. The world is multi_physics, not
physics. You relativist guys know nothing about the world.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:20:48 PM UTC-3, Kye Egonidis wrote:

<snip>

> you can't even find a science branch in university not dealing with
> multi_physics. Your PhD final thesis you defend is based on multi_physics.
> Lab research content is about a 10%. The world is multi_physics, not
> physics. You relativist guys know nothing about the world.

Multi_physics. Lovely coined term, but it has been happening since things started to grew in complexity and ambition.

The first large scale multi_physics project was called "Manhattan", 80 years ago.

Projects like German V (V1 and V2) were similar in complexity and costs, 50% more than Manhattan project.

These two multi_physics projects completely changed the warfare for years to come.

You can realize the impact of those two projects in the war scenes during the last 30 years, and will become yet more relevant.

Another multi_physics project was called TRANSISTOR project, from Bell Labs. The impact of this project, between 1947 and 1952,
changed the world forever. And this happened because Bell Labs licensed the know-how for $ 25,000 plus a cut on future profits to
a dozen of companies, being two of them Japanese (around 1952).

Who could have thought about consequences, when these four projects merged in the next decades?

Science of Death going along with Science of Life? Ironic, isn't it?

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> you can't even find a science branch in university not dealing with
>> multi_physics. Your PhD final thesis you defend is based on
>> multi_physics.
>> Lab research content is about a 10%. The world is multi_physics, not
>> physics. You relativist guys know nothing about the world.
>
> Multi_physics. Lovely coined term, but it has been happening since
> things started to grew in complexity and ambition.

No, it's old, about 20 to 30 years old. But it's started with the
machines, able to solve PDEs etc in regions of interest. So infact would
be a 50 years old.

> The first large scale multi_physics project was called "Manhattan", 80
> years ago.

that was multi_physics as well, but they didn't know it. It took about
thousands of physicists to deal with the interface problems, making it
work.

On 4/22/2022 5:08 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 4:10:51 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> What about Uranus, which rotates sideways?
>
> Maybe your expertise by being a frequent client of gay bars is fooling your head.

So does Uranus rotate clockwise or counterclockwise? And skip the
playground grade insults.
>
> Besides, fact-check the stupidity about the mass of Ceres that you posted, ignorant pretender. Drop Wikipedia!
>
> https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/dwarf-planets/ceres/by-the-numbers/
>

That matches the mass in Wikipedia, but I didn't use Wikipedia.

The mass of the moon is 7.35x10^22 kg vs. Ceres 9.47x10^20 kg.

I'll let you do the math. But you do a *really* piss poor job at
researching things, not just this but lots about Einstein and relativity.

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?

Back on track to the topics of this thread:

1) How old is each planet?

Scientists don't have a fucking clue, and have been playing with laymen since Lord Kelvin, using thermodynamics,
calculated the age of Earth being 100 million years, in 1892.

Around 1930, a dispute between different representatives of branches of science raised the age to about 900 million years.

TIMELINE OF CALCULATIONS
1905 – Rutherford suggests to use radioactive elements with long half-lives, such as uranium, to work out the ages of rocks.

1911 – Arthur Holmes improves on Boltwood’s work. Rock determined to be Carboniferous by relative dating is 340 million years old, a Precambrian rock is 1,640 million years old. These dates are not widely accepted, as they disagree with earlier dating methods.

1920 – Francis Aston invents the mass spectrometer for studying isotopes, which have only been known about for a few years.

1927 – Arthur Holmes suggests that Earth is 1.6–3 billion years old. He realises that all the rocks being chemically dated were formed a long time after Earth was first formed.

1941 – EK Gerling CALCULATES the age of the Earth as 3.2 billion years. He bases this on rocks he THINKS are from the time when Earth was formed. These rocks are later shown to come from after Earth’s formation.

1956 – Clair Patterson realises that SOME METEORITED were formed at the same time as the Earth and have stayed unchanged. He gets the age of 4..55 ± 0.3 billion years from the Canyon Diablo meteorite.

1972 – The oldest rocks BROUGHT BACK from the Moon by the Apollo 17 mission have radiometric dates of up to 4.5 billion years. IT IS THOUGHT that the Moon formed at a similar time to Earth.

1983 - Zircon crystals in Western Australia are dated to 4.2 billion years old. The zircon HAS NOW BECOME PART OF YOUNGER ROCKS BUT HAS NOT CHANGED since it was first formed.

2007 – The oldest known rocks, called Acasta gneiss, are found in Canada, dated at 4.03 billion years old. The 1983 Australian crystals are older, but ARE NO LONGER in their original rock.

Conclusions: Rutherford initiated the trend to use radioactive decay to calculate AGE OF ROCKS (in his dreams, poor fellow).

Beyond C-14 dating range, heavier elements REQUIRE

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:14:13 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz 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?
> Back on track to the topics of this thread:
>
> 1) How old is each planet?
>
> Scientists don't have a fucking clue, and have been playing with laymen since Lord Kelvin, using thermodynamics,
> calculated the age of Earth being 100 million years, in 1892.
>
> Around 1930, a dispute between different representatives of branches of science raised the age to about 900 million years.
>
> TIMELINE OF CALCULATIONS
> 1905 – Rutherford suggests to use radioactive elements with long half-lives, such as uranium, to work out the ages of rocks.
>
> 1911 – Arthur Holmes improves on Boltwood’s work. Rock determined to be Carboniferous by relative dating is 340 million years old, a Precambrian rock is 1,640 million years old. These dates are not widely accepted, as they disagree with earlier dating methods.
>
> 1920 – Francis Aston invents the mass spectrometer for studying isotopes, which have only been known about for a few years.
>
> 1927 – Arthur Holmes suggests that Earth is 1.6–3 billion years old. He realises that all the rocks being chemically dated were formed a long time after Earth was first formed.
>
> 1941 – EK Gerling CALCULATES the age of the Earth as 3.2 billion years. He bases this on rocks he THINKS are from the time when Earth was formed. These rocks are later shown to come from after Earth’s formation.
>
> 1956 – Clair Patterson realises that SOME METEORITED were formed at the same time as the Earth and have stayed unchanged. He gets the age of 4.55 ± 0.3 billion years from the Canyon Diablo meteorite.
>
> 1972 – The oldest rocks BROUGHT BACK from the Moon by the Apollo 17 mission have radiometric dates of up to 4.5 billion years. IT IS THOUGHT that the Moon formed at a similar time to Earth.
>
> 1983 - Zircon crystals in Western Australia are dated to 4.2 billion years old. The zircon HAS NOW BECOME PART OF YOUNGER ROCKS BUT HAS NOT CHANGED since it was first formed.
>
> 2007 – The oldest known rocks, called Acasta gneiss, are found in Canada, dated at 4.03 billion years old. The 1983 Australian crystals are older, but ARE NO LONGER in their original rock.
>
>
>
> Conclusions: Rutherford initiated the trend to use radioactive decay to calculate AGE OF ROCKS (in his dreams, poor fellow).
>
> Beyond C-14 dating range, heavier elements REQUIRE

that their surroundings be ACCURATELY SEALED and protected from any posterior degradation by contamination.
The risk of contamination INCREASES GREATLY with rocks assumed to be older and older.

Such context IS ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PROVEN, so every dating of old samples IS UNDER HEAVY QUESTIONING.

Besides, the alignment with studies from sciences like anthropology, archeology and other Earth sciences are in permanent conflict.

Which part wins? Very simple:

The part, in western science, that SUPPORTS the Big Bang Theory and General Relativity.

The narrative HAS TO BE STUCK in every fucking brain. Repeat after me: Dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, OK?

And who challenge this narrative is going TO BE CANCELLED. Probably, a fucking Russian.

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.

Hell, they made up everything!

The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which
included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The
majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet

"Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially,
eight planets in the solar system."

The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of
a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.

"I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New
Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research
Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."

"This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com.

The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when
almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained.

IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU
was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior
proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be
considered.

Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the
issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a
scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this
question."

"The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work
for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is
interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on."

After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and
zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he
called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to
speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by
Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not
being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just
now as entering the session."

The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in
secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were
interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired
outcome of the rogue scientists.

These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote
was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be
postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire
astronomical institution."

The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no
scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great
job.

A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an
electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed.

IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank.

--
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:
>
> 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.
>
> Hell, they made up everything!
>
> The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which
> included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The
> majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet
>
> "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially,
> eight planets in the solar system."
>
> The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of
> a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.
>
> "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New
> Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research
> Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."
>
> "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com.
>
> The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when
> almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained.
>
> IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU
> was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior
> proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be
> considered.
>
> Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the
> issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a
> scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this
> question."
>
> "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work
> for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is
> interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on."
>
> After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and
> zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he
> called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to
> speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by
> Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not
> being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just
> now as entering the session."
>
> The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in
> secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were
> interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired
> outcome of the rogue scientists.
>
> These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote
> was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be
> postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire
> astronomical institution."
>
> The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no
> scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great
> job.
>
> A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an
> electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed.
>
> IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank.

Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting...

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg

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

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 1:24:01 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Hell, they made up everything!
> >
> > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which
> > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The
> > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet
> >
> > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially,
> > eight planets in the solar system."
> >
> > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of
> > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.
> >
> > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New
> > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research
> > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."
> >
> > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com.
> >
> > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when
> > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained.
> >
> > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU
> > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior
> > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be
> > considered.
> >
> > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the
> > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a
> > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this
> > question."
> >
> > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work
> > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is
> > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on."
> >
> > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and
> > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he
> > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to
> > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by
> > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not
> > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just
> > now as entering the session."
> >
> > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in
> > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were
> > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired
> > outcome of the rogue scientists.
> >
> > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote
> > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be
> > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire
> > astronomical institution."
> >
> > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no
> > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great
> > job.
> >
> > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an
> > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed.
> >
> > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank.
> Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting....
>
> https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

Einstein's worshipers, all of them.

Most making money with books, conferences, MSM or monetizing on YouTube.

Neil deGrasse Tyson was one that vote against. He even laughed about it when appeared on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory.

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 12:46:36 AM UTC-3, The Starmaker wrote:
> 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.
> Hell, they made up everything!
>
> The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which
> included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The
> majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet
>
> "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially,
> eight planets in the solar system."
>
> The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of
> a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.
>
> "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New
> Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research
> Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."
>
> "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com.
>
> The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when
> almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained.
>
> IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU
> was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior
> proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be
> considered.
>
> Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the
> issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a
> scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this
> question."
>
> "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work
> for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is
> interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on."
>
> After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and
> zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he
> called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to
> speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by
> Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not
> being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just
> now as entering the session."
>
> The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in
> secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were
> interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired
> outcome of the rogue scientists.
>
> These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote
> was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be
> postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire
> astronomical institution."
>
> The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no
> scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great
> job.
>
> A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an
> electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed.
>
>
> IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank.
> --
> The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
> to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
> and challenge
> the unchallengeable.

International Astronomical Union (IAU)
9,000 members. Only 5% are active participants.

At its 2006 General Assembly in Prague, it redefined a planet as: “A celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit.”

International Relativity Association (IRA)
250,000 members. Only 1% are active participants.

At its 2011 General Assembly in Princeton, it redefined relativity as: “A wet dream of a new age philosopher, which becomes real
only when you are sleeping, and think that Einstein did beat Newton and time is actually what your clock shows.”

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Hell, they made up everything!
> >
> > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which
> > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The
> > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet
> >
> > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially,
> > eight planets in the solar system."
> >
> > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of
> > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.
> >
> > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New
> > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research
> > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."
> >
> > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com.
> >
> > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when
> > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained.
> >
> > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU
> > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior
> > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be
> > considered.
> >
> > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the
> > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a
> > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this
> > question."
> >
> > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work
> > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is
> > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on."
> >
> > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and
> > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he
> > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to
> > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by
> > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not
> > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just
> > now as entering the session."
> >
> > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in
> > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were
> > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired
> > outcome of the rogue scientists.
> >
> > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote
> > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be
> > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire
> > astronomical institution."
> >
> > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no
> > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great
> > job.
> >
> > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an
> > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed.
> >
> > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank.
>
> Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting...
>
> https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg

A movement by prominent scientists to organize an electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed not
because they weren't smart enough, but simply they weren't...tough enough.

There is only one way to handle a union boss IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers..

Where's Hoffa?

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

Even ZeroHedge is interested on the topic of this thread. Just now:

Visualizing The TimeSpiral Evolution Of Earth Since The Big-Bang
SATURDAY, APR 23, 2022 - 10:00 PM

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/visualizing-timespiral-evolution-earth-big-bang

Since the dawn of humanity, we have looked questioningly to the heavens with great interest and awe. We’ve called on the stars to guide us, and have made some of humanity’s most interesting discoveries based on those observations. This also led us to question our existence and how we came to be in this moment in time.

As Visual Capitalist's Anshool Deshmukh details below, that journey began some 14 billion years ago, when the Big Bang led to the universe emerging from a hot, dense sea of matter and energy.

As the cosmos expanded and cooled, they spawned galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, life.

In the below visualization, Pablo Carlos Buddassi illustrates this journey of epic proportions in the intricately designed Nature Timespiral, depicting the various eras that the Earth has gone through since the inception of the universe itself.

*******************************************

492 comments in 10 hours.

I bet that Moroney and Bodkin wrote 10% of them. Some of them:

Epic!

Weimar, 43 minutes ago

Biblical, historical evidence is just as legit as scientific and they don't even have that, since no one was there in their timeline and carbon dating doesn't compute giant catastrophes, but only small, uniform changes throughout.

In the Biblical timeline people were there and recorded toldoths; Adam's account, Noah's, etc., which Moses wrote down at the time of the Exodus, because the people needed to know their history, since they'd been 400 years in servitude. Each patriarch is mentioned with his offspring, leaving no room for more years. The earth is about 6,000 years old.

Mcbragg, 1 hour ago
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
-A Hitler

zorrosgate, 1 hour ago

During the Cenozoic period, roughly 66 million years ago, early man believed the earth was created from some large dinosaur egg.

Today, scientists can prove how preposterous and idea like that was.

In another 66 million years, scientists will look back on how utterly absurd the big bang theory was. Claiming that whole universes simply cannot evolve out of nothing, and that a dinosaur egg theory is actually much more plausible.

The Big Bang and Hadean Eon

The Big Bang formed the entire universe that we know, including the elements, forces, stars, and planets. Hydrogen and massive dissipation of heat dominated the initial stages of the universe.

During a time span known as the Hadean eon, our Solar System formed within a large cloud of gas and dust. The Sun’s gravitational pull brought together spatial particles to create the Earth and other planets, but they would take a long time to reach their modern forms.

Sometime during the first 800 million years of its history, the surface of the Earth changed from liquid to solid

Archean Eon (4 – 2.5 billion years ago)

After its initial formation, the surface of the Earth was extremely hot. This subsequent eon saw the planet cool down massively, giving rise to oceans and continents, and the first recorded history of rocks.

It was early in the Archean eon that life first appeared on Earth. Our oldest discovered fossils date to roughly 3.5 billion years ago and consist of tiny, preserved microorganisms.

Paleoproterozoic Era (2.5 – 1.6 billion years ago)

The first era of the Proterozoic Eon, the Paleoproterozoic, was the longest in Earth’s geological history. Tectonic plates arose and landmasses shifted across the globe—it was the beginning of the formation of the Earth we know today.

Cyanobacteria, the first organisms using photosynthesis, also appeared during this period. Their photosynthetic activity brought about a rapid upsurge in atmospheric oxygen, resulting in the Great Oxidation Event. This killed off many primordial anaerobic bacterial groups but paved the way for multicellular life to grow and flourish

Mesoproterozoic Era (1.6 – 1 billion years ago)

The Mesoproterozoic occurred during what is known as the “boring billion” stage of Earth’s history. That is due to a lack of widespread geochemical activity and the relative stability of the ocean carbon reservoirs.

But this era did see the break-up of the supercontinents and the formation of new continents. This period also saw the first noted case of sexual reproduction among organisms and the probable appearance of multicellular organisms and green plants.

Neoproterozoic Era (1 billion – 542.0 million years ago)

The Neoproterozoic was arguably the most profound in Earth’s history. It stands at the intersection of the two great tracts of evolutionary time: on the one side, some three billion years of predominantly microbial life, and on the other the inception of a modern biosphere with its extraordinarily diverse large multicellular organisms.

The era saw the formation of the ozone layer and the earliest evidence of multicellular life, including the emergence of the first hard-shelled animals, such as trilobites and archaeocyathids.

Paleozoic Era (541 million – 252 million years ago)

The Paleozoic is best known for ushering in an explosion of life on Earth, with two of the most critical events in the history of animal life. At its beginning, multicellular animals underwent a dramatic Cambrian explosion in aquatic diversity, and almost all living animals appeared within a few millions of years.

At the other end of the Paleozoic, the largest mass extinction in history resulted in 96% of marine life and 70% of terrestrial life dying out. Halfway between these events, animals, fungi, and plants colonized the land, and the insects took to the air.

Mesozoic Era (252 million – 66 million years ago)

The Mesozoic was the Age of Reptiles. Dinosaurs, crocodiles, and pterosaurs ruled the land and air. This era can be subdivided into three periods of time:

Triassic (252 to 201.3 million years ago)

Jurassic (201.3 to 145 million years ago)

Cretaceous (145 to 66 million years ago)

The rise of the dinosaurs began at the end of the Triassic Period. A fossil of one of the earliest-known dinosaurs, a two-legged omnivore roughly three feet long-named Eoraptor, is dated all the way back to this time.

Scientists believe the Eoraptor (and a few other early dinosaurs still being discovered today) evolved into the many species of well-known dinosaurs that would dominate the planet during the Jurassic period. They would continue to flourish well into the Cretaceous period, when it is widely accepted that the Chicxulub impactor, the plummeting asteroid that crashed into Earth off the coast of Mexico, brought the reign of the dinosaurs to an abrupt and calamitous end

Cenozoic Era (66 million – Present Day)

After the end of the Age of Dinosaurs, this era saw massive adaptations by natural flora and fauna to survive. The plants and animals that formed during this era look most like those on Earth today.

The earliest forms of modern mammals, amphibians, birds, and reptiles can be traced back to the Cenozoic. Human history is entirely contained within this period, as apes developed through evolutionary pressure and gave rise to the present-day human being or Homo sapiens.

Your first question: How old is each planet?

Already, everyone here knows you fell for the ...trap.

"planet"????

Where did you get that definition from? They are just all rocks...

and the second trap you fell into is in thinking
that the Earth is all part of these rocks out there.

Look at the Earth. Is there anything about it that
resembles anything out there?

It's got an ocean covering most of the surface.
It's got fishes, trees, flowers, ants, elephants,
....people.

Is there anything out there that contains all that
out there that you seen? So, why call it a planet?

It's a rock with mostly a chemical surface.

You want to grow flowers on Mars or any other
place out there you need to bring the earth with you.

The world "planet" is the oldest lie the scientific community has used
to describe the Earth.

It's a lie.

So, when you ask the question: How old is each planet?

You fell for the lie.

--
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:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Hell, they made up everything!
> > >
> > > The vote took place at the August 2006 IAU meeting in Prague, which
> > > included 424 voting members (out of a total membership of 9,000). The
> > > majority vote was for Pluto to be redesignated as a dwarf planet
> > >
> > > "Pluto is not a planet," Brown said. "There are finally, officially,
> > > eight planets in the solar system."
> > >
> > > The vote involved just 424 astronomers who remained for the last day of
> > > a meeting of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Prague.
> > >
> > > "I'm embarassed for astornomy," said Alan Stern, leader of NASA's New
> > > Horizon's mission to Pluto and a scientist at the Southwest Research
> > > Institute. "Less than 5 percent of the world's astronomers voted."
> > >
> > > "This definition stinks, for technical reasons," Stern told SPACE.com.
> > >
> > > The vote was scheduled at the end of a 10 day conference in Prague when
> > > almost everyone had left. Only 424 of nearly 10,000 members remained.
> > >
> > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers, opened the session stating that the IAU
> > > was asked to act on the planet definition issue. He stressed that prior
> > > proposals were delayed because cultural and popular issues needed to be
> > > considered.
> > >
> > > Ekers stated that this was not just a scientific debate and that the
> > > issue cannot be resolved by science alone. "This is not just a
> > > scientific issue of what is correct. There is no correct answer to this
> > > question."
> > >
> > > "The question is; what is a sensible compromise that will not just work
> > > for the professionals in the field but will work for everybody who is
> > > interested the sky, the planets, is curious, is educating and so on."
> > >
> > > After Mr. Ekers and a panel member read two overwhelmingly positive and
> > > zero dissenting messages from colleagues on the pending resolutions he
> > > called for a show of hands however; 15 IAU members stepped forward to
> > > speak. The first 14 speakers were dissenting, and generally cut off by
> > > Mr. Ekers. The contentious and angry dissention included voters "not
> > > being properly consulted" and receiving the changed resolutions "just
> > > now as entering the session."
> > >
> > > The response from Ekers; "the last step of the proposals was done in
> > > secret to keep them from the press." It seems that a lot of people were
> > > interested in this outcome and were getting in the way of the desired
> > > outcome of the rogue scientists.
> > >
> > > These IAU members strongly dissented stating that the decision to vote
> > > was rushed, more debate needs to take place, the vote should be
> > > postponed and that "what was being presented was an insult to the entire
> > > astronomical institution."
> > >
> > > The 15th and final speaker was recognized and stated that he was no
> > > scientist but that he wanted to say that the committee was doing a great
> > > job.
> > >
> > > A movement by prominent scientists to meet mid-2007 to organize an
> > > electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed.
> > >
> > > IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers is the motherfucker. A crank.
> >
> > Of course, IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers doesn't want electronic voting...
> >
> > https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81m1ZFcggzL._AC_SL1000_.jpg
>
> A movement by prominent scientists to organize an electronic vote by the full membership did not succeed not
> because they weren't smart enough, but simply they weren't...tough enough.
>
> There is only one way to handle a union boss IAU President, Ronald d. Ekers..
>
> Where's Hoffa?

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Your first question: How old is each planet?
>
> Already, everyone here knows you fell for the ...trap.
>
> "planet"????
>
> Where did you get that definition from? They are just all rocks...
>
> and the second trap you fell into is in thinking
> that the Earth is all part of these rocks out there.
>
> Look at the Earth. Is there anything about it that
> resembles anything out there?
>
> It's got an ocean covering most of the surface.
> It's got fishes, trees, flowers, ants, elephants,
> ...people.
>
> Is there anything out there that contains all that
> out there that you seen? So, why call it a planet?
>
> It's a rock with mostly a chemical surface.
>
> You want to grow flowers on Mars or any other
> place out there you need to bring the earth with you.
>
> The world "planet" is the oldest lie the scientific community has used
> to describe the Earth.
>
> It's a lie.
>
> So, when you ask the question: How old is each planet?
>
> You fell for the lie.

Of course, if you ask the 'scientific community' about the Earth they say...

"Oh yeah, there's plenty of planets Earth out there! Billions of them!!"

|
. |
|
\ * | * . /
\ * | . /
. \ ___---___ / .
\.-- --./
~-_ * ./ \. * _-~
~-_ / \ _-~ *
* ~-/ \-~
. | | .
* | | *
-----------| |-----------
. | | .
* | | *
_-\ . /-_ *
. _-~ . \ / ~-_
_-~ `\ /'* ~-_
~ /`--___ ___--'\ ~
* / --- . \ jgs
/ * | \
/ | * \
. | .
|
|

do you see that dot?

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