From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: The Cursor Speaks Out!
Date: 26 Jan 93 18:51:06 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Subject: Re: The Cursor Speaks Out!

smg6@po.CWRU.Edu (Stanley M. Golem) posts...
 
>This is reply to message 12865, posted by Mr. Richard Payne.
>In an earlier message, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

[edited for readability, ^Ms deleted]
 
>>Detection of a wobble by photographic means has always seemed a bit
>>suspicious to me. It seems that the error must exceed the magnitude
>>of the wobble. Perhaps use of CCDs would reduce the errors. This is 
>>something about which I have doubts, can anyone confirm the inaccuracies
>>present in photographic detection?
>
>Please read posts more carefully.  Photographic detection of the type
>that you seem to refer to was not mentioned and, as you point out, would 
>probably not detect a wobble.  

Not so, intitial detection of this kind of wobble -was- done with
photographic methods. This was how the companion to Barnards star
was discovered. It was what I was referring to.

You need to divorce yourself from the notion that I must reference only
what you have posted, and that you need not address any points made not
in reference to your earlier text. The universe does not revolve around
your consciousness.

>                                 But I was not referring to this method. 

I was. 

>My fault -- I should have spelled out "interferometry," which can detect
>stellar diameters as small as 0.00041 arc-second, making use of the wave 
>nature of light.  This technique was first used with the 100-inch Mt. 
>Wilson telescope back in the 1920's, so I assumed that anyone interested 
>in the subject would be well aware of this.

You have other faults, do not flatter yourself. Gee, light has a wave
nature! Gosh. Golly, wait till I tell Gomer...

Interferometry, because of it's greater sensivitity, has other problems.

>My original post said:
>
>>>One might raise the objection that these companions are too large to be
>>>called planets.  If they are nonluminous and orbiting a star, I don't
>>>know what else you'd call them.  
>>So you would call a black hole or a neutron star a planet? The universe
>>may be a bit young for black dwarfs, but these would also fit the bill.
>>But cooler expired stars might not be detectable due to their small
>>surface area.
>
>No, I would not call a black hole or a neutron star a planet.  Don't be
>ridiculous!  The only nonluminous bodies with masses well below that of
>the star they are orbiting are planets, at least as far as we know.  If
>you have incontrovertible proof otherwise, you should share it with the
>rest of us.

My point was that [non-luminous, orbiting star] != [planet]. This was in
direct response to your assertion that "If they are nonluminous and orbiting 
a star, I don't know what else you'd call them." Please try to follow the
conversation. 

>Again, try reading the original post more carefully.  

I don't give a fig about the original post, and apparently you do not
give a fig about dicussion. I guess we both lose.

>                                                        It says, given
>the existence of nonluminous bodies orbiting a star, I would call them
>planets rather than companion stars.  I was refuting a possible objec-
>tion that they might be called stars in their own right.  Is this such
>a hard sentence to understand?

Already addressed.

>My post also said:
>>>                                  In any case, their existence could
>>>not possibly hurt the chances of smaller planets being present.  I
>>>hope this is useful.
>To which you answered:
>
>>Who knows? Honestly, how do you know. Suppose the sub-star inhabits the
>>habitibal zone (where liquid water is possible). Would that not affect
>>the possibility of life at that solar system?
>
>Come on!  If you're going to take up other people's time by posting, at
>least put a little thought into it before you do so.

Gratuitous insults do not add to your posts. Nor did you respond to what 
I had posted. No big surprise there.

I ask again, why do you suppose that a jupiter sized planet located in the
habitable zone could support life?

>I said that the existence of large gas giants could not hurt the chances
>of smaller planets being present.  

And I ask upon what you base this assumption.

>                                      For proof of this, just look at our
>own solar system -- more than one huge planet and a good number of smaller
>ones, at least one of which supports intelligent (for the most part) life.

What do aspects of our solar system prove about other solar systems? Nothing.

>Do you have trouble reading and understanding English, or are you simply
>intellectually dysfunctional?

No, but I do have trouble communicating with the learning disabled.
Perhaps someday you can produce a post that can be read without editing.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors