Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: The Samoan Dicer's Conspiracy Ideas

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    4

    Unhappy The Samoan Dicer's Conspiracy Ideas

    I demand a little more accountability from the people who are writing these astronomy books! I mean really every star that you see (and don't see) has planets around them. That is until we can prove that those stars don't have planets around them. That is science. Not the Mark Rudd way, to demote and redact and say no.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    4
    Keep the information to the gate keepers. Tell us about the Asphalt planets. Roger I love your grain of salt mentality.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,774
    The Samoan Dicer

    I told you in this post that if you wanted to talk about conspiracies you need to start a thread in the CT sub-forum. You ignored my instructions. That earns you an infraction; keep it up and you'll get a suspension.

    I moved your new posts to this thread to continue your ideas. The CT forum has some particular rules you must follow; if you are not prepared to, say so in your next post and this thread will be closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,487
    Quote Originally Posted by The Samoan Dicer View Post
    I demand a little more accountability from the people who are writing these astronomy books! I mean really every star that you see (and don't see) has planets around them. That is until we can prove that those stars don't have planets around them. That is science. Not the Mark Rudd way, to demote and redact and say no.
    The people from whom you are demanding accountability have the benefit of more accurate and powerful astrometric and spectrometric techniques over the decades. The old false positive for Barnard's star was from errors in the relatively primitive techniques at the time, and it was a fluke that these errors resembled genuine effects of orbital motion. The improvements since then refuted that one, and with other stars have detected the real McCoy thousands of times over to date. These advances have been science at its best.
    Last edited by Hornblower; 2018-Aug-18 at 09:09 PM.

  5. #5
    Actually Barnard's star was not found because it had a Doppler shift but because it wobbled as it moved thru space. It was shown not to have planets because the glass plate the images were on had a fault.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,487
    Quote Originally Posted by The Backroad Astronomer View Post
    Actually Barnard's star was not found because it had a Doppler shift but because it wobbled as it moved thru space. It was shown not to have planets because the glass plate the images were on had a fault.
    Another complication was the remounting of the Sproul Observatory's 24-inch objective in a new cell. This reportedly introduced subtle imaging differences between plates taken before and after the change, and was difficult to resolve.

  7. #7
    No conspiracy just better analyses and tools.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,895
    Quote Originally Posted by The Samoan Dicer View Post
    I demand a little more accountability from the people who are writing these astronomy books! I mean really every star that you see (and don't see) has planets around them. That is until we can prove that those stars don't have planets around them. That is science. Not the Mark Rudd way, to demote and redact and say no.
    Sorry, but it's not science as I understand it. My understanding is that the default is that a thing doesn't exist until it has been demonstrated to exist. So I disagree: I think stars can be safely assumed to be planet-free until such time as they can be demonstrated to actually have planets.

    For a second point, what's the value of asserting that all stars have planets? It might be true, but if so it's only trivially true. It's a lot like the golfing truism that 100% of all short putts fail to go into the hole. Sure it's true, but the statement has no value because it doesn't tell you how hard to hit your next shot.

    By comparison, when scientists announce the discovery of an exoplanet, the act of discovery has revealed details about the planet: they know the planet's orbit and size, and, combined with their knowledge of the star it orbits, they know the planet's temperature. In other words, there's value to the announcement.

    For a third point, your assertion that "...every star...has planets around them..." is only accurate to the extent that our models of star and solar system formation are correct. Sure, current theories explain a lot about planet formation, but they don't explain everything. This means there's still room for new or expanded theories to emerge which will render your statement incorrect.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,895
    The Samoan Dicer said (in the linked thread):
    Roger I have wondered about this too. There is a conspiracy going on with Astronomy. Actually a lot of this gets into the realm of the haves and have nots. They know that most of us can't afford to buy and own good telescopes and that we do not have clearance to go to Observatories, like professor or faculty clearance of like a University. So they are a feeding us bull. Stars like Trappist 1 that is only like 10 percent the size of the sun and forty light years away. Or this Kepler 452B. They actually published some article in the dummy news (that's what I call all news) about this. An earth-like planet potentially around Kepler 452B. And guess what that star is only 1400 light years away. What is this? What is going on. We have no hope of sending a human or a probe to any star that is hundreds of light years away. So why even mention it? It's bull news. But that is astronomy. And that is how Astronomy is getting their funds and grants.
    Why mention it? Because it's newsworthy. Why are you upset at the idea that scientists would report the existence of an exoplanet that's 1400 light years away? The fact that we can't currently get there is irrelevant. It's astronomy, and most of it is to do with places we can't currently get to. Should scientists not report the existence of the most distant galaxies ever seen because they're 10+ billion light years away?

    Yeah and in the meantime stars that are close to Earth like Barnard's or Tau Ceti. They are redacting the finds of potential planets around those stars. That scientists published in the 1940 and the 1950s and the 1960s. And scientists back in the 1940s and the 1950s were a heck of a lot sharper than the so called scientists today. Scientists today don't even know how to name a crater or a mountain. And they are all into demoting. The are clowns. You are right they CAN'T DO THIS, but they are doing it. It is a conspiracy. Any star that we humans could conceivably go to in perhaps the not too far future, and perhaps even in the immediate reality these scientists and astronomers are now saying don't bother. Because there is nothing there. How do they seriously know that? Have these clowns been to these stars? What you have to understand Roger is that these clowns don't care if the subject is more complicated than you thought. Because they are trying to shut it down. And totally make it the realm of the haves and the have nots. You want to use our Observatory and do some parallax observing and wobble and shadows . Then you have to bend over and do what we say and do this to accept the research and funding grants. Look at this other one, Wasp12 B, orbiting a star 1400 light years away. What kind of crack are these people on? They are calling it the Asphalt planet or the pitch dark planet. Asphalt is a good word to describe where most Astronomers and scientists today faces are stuck on.
    Well, this is demonstrably wrong. In 2016 scientists announced the existence of a planet orbiting Proxima Centauri, the nearest star to our own (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri_b). In other words, it's the easiest star for us to reach after the Sun, and we know it has a planet.

    So I think I'd like to ask you, why do you think your statements are correct?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    48,774
    The Samoan Dicer has been banned for sock puppetry, so they will not be responding to this thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •