From: smg6@po.CWRU.Edu (Stanley M. Golem)
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors
Subject: Re: The Cursor Speaks Out!
Date: 25 Jan 1993 05:55:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


This is reply to message 12865, posted by Mr. Richard Payne.

In an earlier message, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>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.  But I was not referring to this method. 
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.

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.

Again, try reading the original post more carefully.  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?

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.

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

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



-- 
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors